'i  f  1 

|  H 

' 

>.  .  k  h 


K 

u 


f ' 

H 


i  g 

H 

I 


i  i 


.•« 

&  *4  \  J  ,i\ 

r  t 

S'  t  s>- 


■  ft  *  "  I  1 

5  ;#  i  |~J 

•>'■■  .s  I  1 


>  -'is. 


V-  i  -VA 

A  | 

IV  1  Z:  % 

I 

i  \-  *  $ 

i .  1 

.1  \  a  A 

IK 

F\\  I  :  V 
&  t  *  \, 


% % ■  I't  I  j .\. 


$\  & 


<*>  Jt>  • 

fi  $...*  , 


iff 


A 


r  i  M  i  i 

.  %  1  %  I 

w3  i  i  \i  N 


I 

P 


f 

.. 

I  ■ . 


I 


vs*  ;-j«ssss®ssSs»Kassa : 


mi 


a. 


T  ti 


I  r>T  f  A  M 

i  M 


r\.  A 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

NRW  YORK  •  BOSTON  •  CHICAGO  •  KALLAS 
ATLANTA  .  SAN  FRANCISCO 

MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  Limited 

LONDON  •  BOMBAY  •  CALCUTTA 
MELBOURNE 

THE  MACMILLAN  CO.  OF  CANADA,  Ltd. 

TORONTO 


THE  CHURCH  AND 
THE  RUSSIAN  REVOLUTION 


BY 


MATTHEW  SPINKA,  Ph.D. 


THE  CHICAGO  THEOLOGICAL  SEMIHABY 


BOSTON  COLLEGE  LIBRARY 
CHESTNUT  HILL,  MASS. 


iUtto  got* 

THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

1927 

i  V  ' 

All  rights  reserved 

.  U,.'  <  ^ 


Copyright,  1927, 

By  THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY. 


Set  up  and  printed. 
Published  October,  1927. 


PRINTED  IN  THE  UNITED  STATE*  OP  AMERICA 
BY  THE  CORNWALL  PRESS 


66813 


DEDICATED  TO 


President  Ozora  Stearns  Davis 

OF  THE  CHICAGO  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 


IN  APPRECIATION  OF  HIS  UNFAILING  FRIENDSHIP 


FOREWORD 


The  epochal  changes  which  revolutionized  the  very 
foundations  of  Russian  life  had  a  rousing  effect  upon 
the  rest  of  the  world.  Where  changes  of  such  magni¬ 
tude  and  far-reaching  consequences  are  concerned,  it  is 
inevitable  that  the  movement  causing  them  be  both 
extolled  and  condemned  by  doctrinaires  of  opposite 
tempers,  without  either  much  critical  regard  for  the 
exact  course  of  events,  or  much  historical  discrimina¬ 
tion  of  them.  Hence,  before  any  judgment  worthy  of 
respect  may  be  passed  upon  such  a  cataclysmic  event, 
it  is  imperative  for  a  careful  investigator  to  make  sure 
of  the  exact  facts  upon  which  to  base  his  opinions  and 
conclusions. 

The  fierce  antagonism  to  the  Soviet  regime,  char¬ 
acteristic  of  many  works  dealing  with  the  Russian 
Revolution,  found  ample  expression  in  the  hitherto 
published  scanty  and  fragmentary  treatment  of  the 
Russian  church  during  the  revolutionary  era.  The 
present  work  is  animated  by  the  sole  desire  to  gather 
the  primary  historical  source  material  which  would  be 
fairly  representative  of  both  the  governmental  as  well 
as  the  ecclesiastical  sides,  and  to  present  the  course  of 
events  in  the  light  of  this  evidence.  The  aim  sought 
is  a  sympathetic  understanding  and  appreciation  of 
the  conflicting  interests  which  inevitably  produced  the 
deplorable  strife  into  which  the  parties  to  the  conflict 
were  hurled,  for  a  study  of  the  actual  situation  is  vastly 

more  profitable  than  any  amount  of  debate  regarding 

•  • 

Vll 


viii  Foreword 

the  merits  or  demerits  of  the  respective  philosophies 
involved.  The  book  does  not  aim  to  justify  or  con¬ 
demn  the  opposing  principles,  but  to  present  them  in 
the  light  of  their  historical  development,  which  pro¬ 
duced  the  situation  where  conflict  between  them  was 
inevitable.  It  is  sincerely  hoped  that  this  mode  of 
presentation  may  contribute  toward  a  more  critical, 
and  therefore  more  equitable,  appraisal  of  the  present 
Russian  ecclesiastical  realities. 

Certain  problems  peculiar  to  this  particular  type  of 
investigation  were  encountered  in  the  process:  in  the 
matter  of  dating,  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the 
dates  appearing  in  this  book  were  left  as  given  in  their 
respective  sources,  for  the  author  found  it  impossible 
to  determine  in  every  instance  which  calendar  had 
been  used.  The  Soviet  government  adopted  the 
Gregorian  calendar  in  1918;  the  second  Local  Sobor  of 
the  Russian  Orthodox  Church,  representative  of  the 
reformist  groups,  likewise  adopted,  in  1923,  the 
calendar  in  use  in  the  West;  but  the  patriarchal  party, 
representative  of  some  two-thirds  of  the  Russian 
church,  still  adheres  to  the  old  calendar,  which  is 
thirteen  days  behind  the  Gregorian. 

Another  problem  concerned  the  transliteration  of  the 
Russian  alphabet.  The  system  used  in  this  work  is,  in 
the  main,  the  one  adopted  by  the  British  Conference  of 
University  Teachers  of  Russian  and  Slavonic  Lan¬ 
guages,  for  this  mode  is  much  less  cumbersome  than 
the  so-called  Library  of  Congress  scheme. 

The  author  takes  this  opportunity  to  thank  Dr. 
Sherwood  Eddy,  of  New  York,  for  his  friendly  aid  in 
securing  the  Russian  vise;  also  the  splendid  staff  of 
the  Society  for  Cultural  Relations  with  Foreign  Coun¬ 
tries,  in  Moscow,  for  arranging  interviews  with  impor- 


Foreword 


IX 


tant  state  officials.  Invaluable  help  was  likewise 
given,  both  by  opening  the  archives  to  the  author 
and  by  private  conferences,  by  many  high  digni¬ 
taries  of  the  Holy  Synod  of  the  Russian  Orthodox 
Church  and  the  patriarchal  party  of  the  Russian 
Orthodox  Church  in  Russia  as  well  as  in  this  country. 

Grateful  acknowledgment  is  also  made  to  the  editors 
of  The  Journal  of  Religion  and  of  The  Religious  Edu¬ 
cation  for  the  permission  to  use  some  sections  of  the 
text  which  had  previously  appeared  in  these  magazines. 
Sincere  thanks  are  likewise  rendered  to  Dr.  Carl  S. 
Patton  of  the  Chicago  Theological  Seminary,  who 
read  and  corrected  the  text  in  proof. 

The  Author. 

The  Chicago  Theological  Seminary 
May  9,  1927 


,  ■ 

IT  I  T; 


*• 


\ 


INTRODUCTION 


It  is  hard  to  discuss  impartially  policies  with  which 
one  differs.  Particularly  is  this  true  in  the  case  of 
religion,  and  most  difficult  of  all  where  a  complete 
social  philosophy  is  involved.  This  is  very  likely  the 
reason  why  we  have  been  given  such  varying  pictures 
of  the  religious  condition  of  Russia.  It  is  hard  for 
an  observer  to  detach  himself  from  his  own  sympa¬ 
thies  and  shape  his  opinions  by  facts  alone.  Inabil¬ 
ity  to  use  the  Russian  language  compels  most  English 
and  American  observers  to  rely  upon  second-hand 
information  and,  at  best,  translations  of  various  dis¬ 
cussions  and  official  documents.  This  places  the 
observer  very  much  at  the  mercy  of  other  people’s 
prejudices  and  interests. 

Dr.  Spinka  has  written  a  work  which,  in  my  opinion, 
is  an  exception  to  these  generalities.  A  master  of  the 
Russian  language,  he  has  been  able  to  examine  mate¬ 
rial  inaccessible  in  translation.  In  a  recent  visit  to 
Russia  he  was  able  to  gain  information  from  many 
persons  at  first  hand,  and  an  historical  training  has 
guided  him  in  the  use  of  material.  Naturally  he  has 
his  own  convictions  as  an  American  Protestant,  but  he 
has  sincerely  attempted  to  look  at  the  Russian  situa¬ 
tion  as  an  historian  rather  than  as  a  critic  or  as  a 
champion  of  either  Bolshevism  or  Russian  Christian¬ 
ity.  As  a  result  his  work  is  a  well-balanced  introduc¬ 
tion  to  a  study  of  a  very  complicated  and  delicate 


xi 


Introduction 


•  • 

Xll 

situation.  It  cannot  fail  to  give  the  American  reader 
much  needed  information  and  a  point  of  view  from 
which  to  interpret  the  facts  Dr.  Spinka  gives  so 
generously. 


Shailer  Mathews. 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 


Foreword . vii 

Introduction . xi 

CHAPTER 

I.  The  Roots  of  the  Matter . 1 


II.  Between  the  Two  Revolutions  (1905-1917)  44 

III.  The  March  Revolution  (1917)  ....  64 

IV.  The  First  All-Russian  Local  Sobor  of  1917  79 

V.  The  First  Years  of  the  Soviet  Regime  .  102 


VI.  The  Soviet  Ecclesiastical  Legislation  .  .  147 

VII.  'The  Famine  and  Its  Consequences  .  .  162 

VIII.  The  Origin  of  the  Schism . 190 

IX.  The  Second  All-Russian  Local  Sobor  .  .  232 

X.  A  House  Divided  Against  Itself  ....  261 

XI.  The  Present  Situation . 292 

XII.  Conclusion . 323 

Biblrdgraphy . 327 


THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  RUSSIAN 

REVOLUTION 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  ROOTS  OF  THE  MATTER 

The  Great  War,  so  staggeringly  costly  in  human  life 
and  treasure,  was  likewise  profligate  of  spiritual  values. 
The  ghastly  beastliness  which  it  revealed  served  to 
manifest  to  the  startled  world  that  the  dominating  ele¬ 
mental  passions  of  the  so-called  Christian  nations, 
which  nevertheless  were  not  nations  of  Christians,  were 
utterly  pagan,  and  that  the  “Christian”  civilization  of 
which  they  all  boasted  was  but  skin-deep,  and  failed  to 
penetrate  into  and  affect  the  soul  of  the  European  peo¬ 
ples.  The  frank  and  brutal  disregard  of  Christian  ideals 
and  practice,  and  worst  of  all,  the  general  hearty  and 
even  enthusiastic  moral  support  which  the  national 
churches  loyally  manifested  in  a  multitude  of  unmis¬ 
takable  ways,  glaringly  illuminated  the  fact  that  the 
dominant  passions  which  actuated  the  imperialistic 
states  were  shared  by  the  Christian  church  as  well.  For 
ever  and  ever,  the  fact  that  the  church  was  permeated 
with  the  shamelessly  pagan  spirit  of  greed  for  power 
which  dominated  the  Western  imperialistic  policies 
must  be  acknowledged  by  the  followers  of  the  Great 
Teacher  as  one  of  the  most  serious  cases  of  disloyalty 
and  unfaithfulness  to  his  gospel. 


2  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

The  fearful  price  which  in  consequence  the  church 
was  called  upon  to  pay  for  its  subservience  to  the 
imperialistic  and  militaristic  state  policies  was  nowhere 
revealed  with  greater  clarity  than  in  Russia,  where  the 
tsarist  caesaropapism  was  likewise  at  its  worst.  The 
whole  Christian  world  was  startled  and  shocked  with 
the  fateful  consequences  of  that  situation,  for  the  swift 
and  terrible  vengeance  which  overtook  the  tsarist 
church  along  with  the  tsarist  state  was  wreaked  indis¬ 
criminately  upon  the  guilty  and  the  innocent.  Ulti¬ 
mately,  the  fiery  scourge  which  purged  the  Russian 
church  and  burned  away  so  much,  may  prove,  and 
indeed  is  quite  likely  to  prove,  to  have  been  a  blessing 
in  disguise.  But  such  catastrophic  upheavals  are  costly 
in  human  suffering,  and  the  fire  of  destruction  rages 
indiscriminately,  reducing  to  ashes  the  rotten  as  well 
as  that  which  was  well  worth  preserving.  It  is  utterly 
futile  to  raise  the  question  whether  the  urgently  needed 
reform  of  that  communion  could  not  come  in  a  less 
destructive  way:  historical  forces,  like  natural  laws, 
are  pitiless  in  their  unrestrainable  onward  rush,  and 
where  wind  has  been  sown  for  so  many  centuries  so 
generously,  who  can  wonder  that  a  whirlwind  should 
finally  arise? 

To  many  Westerners,  so  little  and  imperfectly 
informed  about  the  conditions  which  prevailed  under 
the  former  Russian  tsarist  autocracy,  it  appeared  that 
the  Russian  church  was  overtaken  by  a  swift  and  inex¬ 
plicable  doom,  as  when  a  hurricane  suddenly  swoops 
upon  the  coast  of  Florida,  wrecking  its  cities  and  scat¬ 
tering  the  ruins  all  along  the  shore.  But  in  reality, 
there  was  actually  nothing  sudden  about  the  Russian 
hurricane.  The  storm  had  been  brewing  for  many 
decades,  and  the  rumble  of  the  revolutionary  thunders 


3 


The  Roots  of  the  Matter 

was  heard  long  before  the  storm  broke  out  into  fury. 
To  understand  the  situation  in  which  the  church  found 
itself  after  the  October  Revolution  of  1917,  it  is  neces¬ 
sary  to  trace  the  causes  of  the  revolt  against  the 
church  in  the  history  of  the  nineteenth  century. 
Hence,  a  brief  review  of  these  movements  must  be 
presented. 

First  of  all,  it  must  be  understood  that  Russia, 
religiously  speaking,  is  a  world  by  itself.  It  is  Chris¬ 
tian,  but  its  Christianity  is  Byzantine  to  begin  with, 
and  besides  remained  untouched  by  the  influences  both 
of  the  Renaissance  and  the  Reformation  movements. 
It  was  largely  free  of  the  legalisms  of  Latin  Chris¬ 
tianity,  but  its  petrified  Byzantinism,  redolent  with 
mystical  piety  and  superstitious  ceremonialism,  was 
essentially  medieval,  other-worldly,  ascetic,  and  myth¬ 
ological.  It  may  be  said  to  be  much  nearer  to  the 
Christianity  of  the  early  centuries,  in  the  sense  that  it 
retained  the  atmosphere  of  supernaturalism  and  magic 
as  its  native  air.  Thus  its  uneducated  masses  are  only 
half  Christian,  the  larger  half  of  their  religious  attitude 
being  of  a  pre-Christian  quality.  The  same  judgment 
is  expressed  by  no  less  a  historian  of  the  Russian  cul¬ 
tural  life  than  Paul  N.  Milyukov  in  his  classical  Essays 
upon  the  History  oj  the  Russian  Culture ,1 

The  official  orthodoxy  prided  itself  upon  the  preser¬ 
vation  of  the  Greek  theological  system,  as  worked 
out  by  John  of  Damascus  in  the  eighth  cen¬ 
tury,  essentially  unchanged,  unprogressive  and  reac¬ 
tionary.  Fundamentally,  it  differed  but  little,  as  far 
as  the  temper  of  its  doctrine  was  concerned,  from  West¬ 
ern  Catholicism;  it  regarded  the  dogmas  of  the  church 
as  “revealed  truth,”  and  as  such  they  were  held  to  be 

1  Prague,  1903;  part  II,  Chapter  V. 


4  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

absolutely  without  error,  unsusceptible  of  either  addi¬ 
tion,  subtraction,  development,  or  reinterpretation. 
The  belief  in  these  dogmas  was  necessary  to  salvation ; 
the  sacraments  were  regarded  as  mediating  objective 
grace  in  a  truly  magical  manner  and  were  defined  essen¬ 
tially  in  the  Roman  Catholic  sense.  This  authoritarian 
system  was  imposed  upon  the  clergy  and  the  believers, 
and  on  the  whole  has  been  accepted,  by  the  great 
majority,  unquestioningly  and  implicitly,  with  even 
less  desire  for  a  rational  apprehension  of  the  articles  of 
belief  than  has  been  the  case  in  the  Western  com¬ 
munions.  The  mentality  of  the  official  church  had 
been  well  represented  by  the  opinions  of  the  notorious 
ober-procuror  of  the  Holy  Synod  at  the  end  of  the  nine¬ 
teenth  century  (1880-1905),  Constantine  P.  Pobedo- 
nostsev.  He  rejected  all  rationalism  as  the  fatal  disease 
of  Western  Europe,  and  proudly  offered  the  Byzantine 
mysticism  and  mystagogism  in  its  stead.  The  absolute 
truth  cannot  be  clearly,  logically  formulated  or  rea¬ 
soned  out;  it  must  be  intuitively  apprehended.  The 
Christian  truth  is  thus  mystically  mediated  through 
the  Orthodox  cult,  and  in  consequence  the  believer  is 
in  possession  of  the  absolute  truth.  Logic  is  the  work 
of  the  devil.  “The  spread  of  popular  education  is  posi¬ 
tively  harmful.”  2 

Another  representative  of  this  official  Byzantinism 
was  a  monk,  Constantine  N.  Leontev  (1831-91).  The 
true  Christianity  for  Leontev  was  the  ascetic  other¬ 
worldliness  of  the  monks  and  the  nuns.  The  world — 
as  well  as  man — is  utterly  corrupt.  Since  man  is  cor¬ 
rupt,  he  cannot  be  expected  freely  to  believe  in  God; 
therefore,  “we  must  force  ourselves  to  believe  in 

*  TA  G-  Massaryk:  The  Spirit  of  Russia ,  Vol.  II,  Part  II,  p  286 

(In  Czech.)  *  < 


5 


The  Roots  of  the  Matter 

God.”3  Others,  of  course,  must  likewise  be  forced. 
God  cannot  be  known  through  reason  or  the  moral 
sense,  but  only  by  mystical  intuition ;  science  and  phil¬ 
osophy  can  give  us  no  true  knowledge  of  God,  and  are 
in  reality  enemies  of  all  true  religion.  Therefore,  illit¬ 
eracy  is  Russia’s  great  good  fortune.  Russians  must  be 
preserved  from  the  sins  of  European  civilization,  for 
thus  alone  can  they  retain  purity  of  faith ;  Russia  must 
therefore  be  permitted  “to  freeze.” 

But  along  with  this  obscurantist  dogmatism  of 
Orthodoxy,  the  Russian  church  was  expected  to  serve 
as  the  spiritual  police  of  the  autocratic  state.  This 
probably  was  the  greatest  spiritual  wrong  which  it  had 
suffered.  It  had  always  been  in  subjection  to  the  tsars, 
with  just  a  few  exceptions  which  only  served  to  accen¬ 
tuate  the  rule,  but  since  the  days  of  Peter  the  Great, 
who  could  not  tolerate  even  a  possibility  of  the  revival 
of  the  pretensions  of  some  Patriarch  Nikon,  the  church 
was  effectually  subjugated  by  the  creation  of  the  Holy 
Governing  Synod  (1721).  By  this  device,  the  tsar 
became,  in  matters  civil,  the  autocratic  governor  of  the 
church  as  well  as  of  the  state.  It  is  often  said  that  the 
tsar  was  not  the  head  of  the  Russian  church.  The  exact 
scope  of  his  office  may  be  seen  from  the  Fundamental 
Laws  of  the  state,  revised  on  May  6,  1906.  Paragraph 
4  states  that  the  tsar  of  all  the  Russias  wields  an  auto¬ 
cratic  power.  To  obey  his  supreme  rule  not  only  out  of 
fear,  but  because  of  duty  dictated  to  us  by  conscience, 
is  advised  by  God  himself.  Paragraph  64  defines  that 
the  Russian  tsar,  being  a  Christian  ruler,  is  the  supreme 
protector  and  guardian  of  the  dogmas  of  the  Greek- 
Russian  faith,  and  supervises  orthodoxy  and  good  order 
in  the  holy  church.  It  is  in  the  sense  of  a  “bishop  of 

3  Ibid.,  p.  295. 


6  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

exterior  affairs”  that  he  is  called  the  head  of  the  church. 
Katkov,  the  outstanding  journalist  of  the  reactionary 
theocracy  of  the  nineteenth  century,  described  the 
tsar’s  theocratical  standing  in  these  glowing  terms: 

All  power  has  its  derivation  from  God ;  the  Russian 
tsar,  however,  was  endowed  with  a  special  significance, 
distinguishing  him  from  the  rest  of  the  world  s  rulers. 
He  is  not  only  the  tsar  of  his  land  and  the  leader  of  his 
people  but  has  been  designated  by  God  to  be  the 
guardian  and  custodian  of  the  Orthodox  church.  The 
Russian  tsar  is  more  than  an  heir  to  his  ancestors,  he  is 
a  successor  to  the  Caesars  of  the  Eastern  Empire,  the 
builders  of  the  church  and  its  conclaves,  the  founders 
of  the  very  creed  of  the  Faith  of  Christ.  With  the  fall 
of  Byzantium,  Moscow  arose  and  the  grandeur  of 
Russia  began.  Herein  lies  the  mystery  of  the  deep  dis¬ 
tinction  between  Russia  and  all  the  nations  of  the 
world.* 

The  appointment  to  the  Holy  Synod  was  ultimately 
in  the  hands  of  the  tsar.  The  original  Regulations  pro¬ 
vided  for  a  council  of  twelve,  consisting  of  both  clerical 
and  lay  members.  But  soon  by  custom  the  lay  mem¬ 
bers  were  excluded,  with  the  exception  of  the  ober- 
procuror,  who  was  the  tsar’s  direct  representative.  This 
official,  in  the  course  of  time,  became  a  practical  dic¬ 
tator.  The  decrees  of  the  Synod  became  valid  only 
upon  the  signature  of  the  tsar,  but  were  presented  to 
the  tsar  only  by  the  ober-procuror,  who  could  veto  the 
synodical  decree,  or  could  merely  refrain  from  present¬ 
ing  it  to  his  imperial  master,  whereupon  it  automat¬ 
ically  lapsed.  Down  to  1905,  the  members  of  the  Holy 
Synod  could  not  even  communicate  with  the  emperor 

*  In  Moskovskya  Vedomosti,  Nov.  8,  1882;  quoted  in  Olgin:  The 
Soul  of  the  Russian  Revolution,  New  York,  1917,  p.  58. 


7 


The  Roots  of  the  Matter 

save  through  the  ober-procuror.  Needless  to  say  that 
the  ober-procurors  were  carefully  selected  men,  of 
trusted  loyalty  and  proven  pliability,  through  whom 
the  entire  Holy  Synod  became  but  a  state  department 
for  ecclesiastical  affairs,  on  a  par  with  the  other  depart¬ 
ments  of  the  governmental  machinery.  The  ober-pro¬ 
curor  virtually  had  the  power  of  choosing  the  members 
of  the  body,  for  the  emperor  made  his  appointments 
from  the  list  nominated  by  the  procuror.  Four 
members  of  the  Synod  held  their  office  not  by  reason  of 
appointment,  but  because  they  occupied  the  chief 
metropolitanates  in  Russia,  those  of  Moscow,  Peters¬ 
burg,  and  Kiev,  together  with  the  exarchate  of  Georgia. 
But  since  these  exalted  cathedras  were  filled  by  im¬ 
perial  appointment,  and  always  carried  with  them  a 
seat  in  the  Holy  Synod,  it  was  merely  a  more  indirect 
way  of  appointing  to  the  governing  body.  It  was  in 
this  fashion  that  the  ober-procuror,  who  was  really  the 
tsar’s  minister  for  ecclesiastical  affairs,  and  was  re¬ 
sponsible  to  him  alone,  possessed  the  power  to  choose 
the  members  of  the  body,  and  wielded  control  over 
them  which  willy-nilly  made  them  but  mere  puppets 
in  his  hands. 

The  primary  qualification  of  this  chief  executive  and 
judicial  official  of  the  Russian  church  was,  of  course, 
his  devotion  to  the  tsar  and  subservience  to  the  policy 
of  making  the  church  the  mainstay  of  the  state.  For 
example,  Constantine  P.  Pobedonostsev,  who  held  the 
office  from  1880  to  1905,  was  a  reactionary  of  the  deep¬ 
est  dye.  But  especially  enlightening  is  the  case  of  the 
associate  ober-procuror,  Prince  N.  D.  Zhevakhov,  who 
served  during  the  World  War  to  the  end  of  the  tsarist 
monarchy,  for  his  type  goes  far  to  explain  the  violent 
reaction  of  the  revolutionaries  against  the  church.  He 


8  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

reveals  himself  to  us  in  his  Reminiscences  B  as  a  per¬ 
sonality  naively  mystical  and  superstitious,  as  well  as 
bigotedly  monarchical.  He  actually  believed,  and  per¬ 
suaded  the  empress  to  share  his  “faith,”  that  the  Great 
War  continued  to  rage  because  an  icon  of  St.  Joasaph 
had  not  been  paraded  along  the  army  front,  as  this 
saint  had  ordered  in  a  dream!  Only  upon  the  condition 
that  the  icon  be  exhibited  would  God  have  mercy  upon 
Russia  and  the  world  and  stop  the  war ! 

His  monarchism  may  be  seen  from  a  few  examples 
of  his  own  expressions.  In  an  audience  with  the  tsarina 
he  reports  himself  as  having  said  to  her: 

One  of  the  greatest  errors  of  the  present  time  is  the 
idea  of  parliamentarism,  hostile  to  the  idea  of  the 
imperial  rule,  proclaiming  the  principle  of  the  collec¬ 
tive  mind.  Collective  mind  does  not  exist  at  all.  There 
is  a  leader,  and  there  is  the  mob  blindly  entrusting 
itself  to  that  leader  and  following  him.  Such  a  leader 
is  to  be  found  in  the  tsar,  the  Anointed  of  God,  as  he 
leads  the  people  in  the  paths  of  God’s  law  and  brings 
down  upon  his  people  the  blessing  of  God.  The  under¬ 
mining  of  the  sacred  bases  of  Autocracy  began  long 
ago,  but  it  never  originated  among  the  masses  of  the 
people,  but  always  in  the  mind  of  some  evil-intentioned 
person.  .  .  .  The  manifesto  of  October  17,  1905, 

proclaiming  the  founding  of  the  governmental  Duma 
was  forced  from  the  tsar  by  a  small  group  of  such  evil- 
intentioned  individuals,  who  intimidated  the  govern¬ 
ment  by  the  threat  of  a  revolution.7 

Describing  an  occasion  upon  which  he  saw  the  tsar 
attending  a  church  service,  Prince  Zhevakhov  waxed 

6N.  D.  Zhevakhov :  Reminiscences,  Vol.  I,  Munich,  1923.  (In 
Russian.) 

6  Ibid.,  pp.  33,  50. 

7  Ibid.,  p.  83. 


9 


The  Roots  of  the  Matter 

melodramatic:  “With  what  a  love  I  looked  upon  the 
tsar,  with  what  a  pain  I  read  in  the  sad  expression  of 
his  wonderful  eyes  the  torment  and  suffering  which  the 
tsar  carries  on  his  shoulders  on  account  of  the  sins  of 
Russia.  ...”  8  It  may  be  presumed  that  the  world  at 
present  knows  fairly  well  whose  sins  it  was  that  the  tsar 
had  carried  on  his  shoulders!  And  it  was  such  a  man 
as  Zhevakhov  that  headed  the  Russian  church  during 
the  fearful  period  of  the  Great  War! 

Appointment  to  the  episcopal  sees  throughout  Russia 
was  in  the  hands  of  the  Holy  Synod,  which,  of  course, 
was  guided  in  its  choice  by  the  ober-procuror.  It  was 
this  very  completely  centralized  church  government 
which  made  the  tsar  well-nigh  all-powerful  in  the 
church,  as  he  was  in  the  state,  and  made  the  church  so 
abjectly  subservient  to  his  autocratic  dictates.  The 
bishops  were  elevated  to  their  high  office,  and  could 
hope  for  further  promotion  only  as  they  made  them¬ 
selves  pleasing  to  the  government.  It  was  for  this  rea¬ 
son  that  transferring  of  bishops  from  one  see  to  another 
was  of  frequent  occurrence.  Thus,  for  instance,  Bishop 
Yakovlev  of  Yaroslavl  was  transferred  no  less  than  five 
different  times  within  thirteen  years  ( 1892-1904). 0  No 
wonder  the  bishops  did  not  know  the  problems  of  their 
immense  dioceses!  They  did  not  have  time  even  to 
become  acquainted  with  them. 

With  the  dominance  of  this  frankly  autocratic  eccle¬ 
siastical  polity,  in  which  no  suggestion  of  a  democratic, 
representative  system  was  discernible,  it  is  not  difficult 
to  understand  that  the  church  organization  has  been 
systematically  exploited  in  the  interests  of  political 
autocracy  and  absolutism.  The  religious  training  of 

8  Ibid.,  p.  40. 

8  F.  Haase:  Die  Religiose  Psyche  des  Russisches  Volkes,  p.  54. 


10  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

Russians  of  all  classes  was  consciously  and  persistently 
directed  toward  instilling  in  them  ideas  of  the  divine 
prerogatives  of  the  imperial  autocrat,  through  whom 
God  carries  out  His  will  for  Russia,  as  well  as  of  the 
obligation  of  passive  obedience  to  his  commands  on  the 
part  of  the  people.  It  would  be  difficult  to  exaggerate 
the  importance  of  this  ideological  basis  of  the  tsarist 
power,  and  the  government  was  keenly  alive  to  its 
value.  The  church  was  the  surest  and  stoutest  prop  of 
the  theocratic  absolutism;  it  was  the  spiritual  police 
of  the  state. 

The  spiritual  condition  of  the  vast  masses  of  the  Rus¬ 
sian  peasants  and  workers  was  deplorable.  They  were 
kept  in  dense  ignorance  (which  in  the  opinion  of  Leon- 
tev  was  so  beneficial  for  them) ,  and  their  religious  con¬ 
cepts  were  hardly  above  superstition  and  magic.  The 
very  heart  of  the  Russian  peasant’s  religion  was  his 
worship  of  the  images — the  icons — and  the  relics  from 
which  he  expected  relief  from  his  many  ills;  and  next 
to  this  was  his  belief  in  the  magical  powers  of  the  sac¬ 
raments,  with  which  his  concept  of  “salvation”  was 
identified.  There  were  no  less  than  241  officially 
recorded  “miracle-working”  sacred  icons,  among  which 
the  various  representations  of  the  Mother  of  God  pre¬ 
dominate.  But  aside  from  these,  there  are  innumerable 
shrines  with  various  sacred  paraphernalia,  which  are 
all  objects  of  veneration.  Let  anyone  who  wishes  to 
observe  this  practice  but  go  to  Moscow  to  the  most  cele¬ 
brated  shrine  of  the  Iverian  Virgin,  standing  under  the 
very  walls  of  the  Kremlin,  and  see  the  type  of  devotion 
exhibited  there.  Secure  in  his  naive  beliefs  in  the 
mythological  and  mystagogic  Byzantinism,  the  mu¬ 
zhik  was  “safe”  both  for  the  tsarist  autocracy  and  the 
Orthodox  church. 


11 


The  Roots  of  the  Matter 

Even  though  the  Russian  masses  were  thus  secured 
in  the  thraldom  of  autocracy  and  superstition,  the  edu¬ 
cated  classes  could  not  be  kept  segregated  within  the 
limits  of  the  official  system,  and  could  not  be  rendered 
immune  from  the  cultural  influences  of  Western 
Europe.  The  educated  nineteenth-century  Russia 
was  obliged  to  face  the  problems  which  the  philosophy 
and  the  science  of  the  day  had  raised.  Having  no 
native,  ripe  culture  of  their  own,  Russians  were  ill  pre¬ 
pared  to  assimilate  the  conclusions  which  elsewhere 
were  the  fruit  of  an  indigenous,  slow-maturing  cultural 
process.  Therefore  the  results  of  attempting  to  do  so 
were  often  startlingly  violent  and  violently  startling. 
Toward  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century,  educated 
Russia  became  thoroughly  imbued  with  the  spirit  and 
opinions  of  Voltaire,  Diderot,  and  Rousseau,  and  later 
with  the  German  idealistic  philosophy,  especially  that 
of  Sehelling,  Hegel,  and  Feuerbach,  as  well  as  with  the 
materialism  of  Vogt,  the  positivism  of  Comte,  and  the 
evolutionary  agnosticism  of  Spencer. 

The  reaction  of  the  intelligentsia  to  the  Western 
world-view  produced  various  movements  sharply  dif¬ 
ferentiated  from  one  another.  In  general,  they  may 
be  divided  into  two  classes :  those  which  saw  the  salva¬ 
tion  of  Russia  in  the  acceptance  of  the  Western  culture 
— the  Westerners;  and  those  which  regarded  the  Euro¬ 
pean  culture  as  thoroughly  decadent,  and  insisted  that 
Russia  must  create  her  own  culture,  quite  unlike  that 
of  the  West,  out  of  her  own  native  elements.  These 
latter  were  known  as  the  Slavophils. 

The  Slavophil  party  comprised  educated  Russians  of 
rather  narrowly  nationalistic  tendencies.  The  nine¬ 
teenth  century  witnessed  an  awakening  of  nationalistic 
consciousness  among  many  previously  somnolent  peo- 


12  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

pies,  or  such  as  were  rendered  comatose  by  the  wily 
drugging  carried  on  by  others,  and  in  most  cases  their 
awakening  was  accompanied  with  an  abnormal  nation¬ 
alistic  emphasis,  often  amounting  to  chauvinism,  which 
manifested  itself  among  them.  Similarly  in  Russia: 
Slavophilism  united  an  ardent,  emotional  patriotism  or 
nationalism  with  an  equally  zealous,  somewhat  uncrit¬ 
ical  valuation  of  the  Russian  Orthodox  Church,  even 
though  tempered  by  a  certain  amount  of  cautious  crit¬ 
icism  of  the  excesses  of  official  eeclesiasticism.  To  them 
a  hundred-percent  Russianism  wasi  indissolubly  con¬ 
nected  with  a  zealous  profession  of  the  Orthodox  tenets 
and  an  ecstatic  admiration  of  the  Old-Slavonic  cultus. 
In  his  philosophical  discussion  of  The  Meaning  of  His¬ 
tory,  Nicholas  Berdyaev  describes  the  movement  in 
these  apt  words : 

The  whole  Slavophil  movement  was  imbued  with 
hatred  not  so  much  of  the  European  culture  as  of  the 
European  civilization.  The  thesis  “the  West  is  decay¬ 
ing”  signified  that  the  great  European  culture  was 
dying,  and  that  the  soulless,  godless  European  civiliza¬ 
tion  had  become  victorious.  .  .  .  The  struggle  of 

Russia  with  Europe,  of  the  East  with  the  West,  repre¬ 
sented  a  struggle  of  the  spirit  with  unspirituality,  or 
religious  culture  with  irreligious  civilization.  They 
(the  Slavophils)  wished  to  believe  that  Russia  would 
not  go  the  way  of  civilization,  but  would  follow  her  own 
path,  her  own  destiny,  that  in  Russia  alone  a  culture  on 
religious  bases  was  possible — a  genuine  spiritual  cul¬ 
ture.10 

The  Slavophil  party  was,  therefore,  religiously  very 
important,  for  in  spite  of  its  blind  devotion  to  the 

10  Nicholas  Berdyaev:  The  Meaning  of  History,  Berlin,  1923,  p. 
250.  (In  Russian.) 


13 


The  Roots  of  the  Matter 

national  church,  it  produced  or  influenced  the  leading 
religious  thinkers  of  modern  Russia.  Hence  it  would 
be  fitting  and  proper,  in  the  interests  of  a  just  evalua¬ 
tion  of  the  Russian  religious  situation  as  a  whole,  to 
present  a  brief  resume  of  this  school  of  thought  as  well 
as  the  related  mystical  schools,  for  they  were  all  rather 
closely  connected  in  principle,  if  not  always  in  method. 

The  founder  of  the  Slavophil  party  was  Ivan  V. 
Kireyevsky  (1806-1855),  who  taught  that  Russia  was 
essentially  different  from  Europe,  .  in  as  much  as  the 
foundations  of  Russian  culture  were  to  be  sought  in  the 
mystical  faith  of  the  Russian  Christianity,  while  those 
of  European  culture  manifested  themselves  in  her 
rationalistic  sciences  and  her  positivistic  philosophy. 
The  Russian  church,  untouched  by  these  corrosive 
influences,  had  alone  preserved  Christianity  in  its  mys¬ 
tical,  intuitive  apprehension  of  the  absolute  truth  as 
revealed  in  the  Orthodox  dogmas  as  well  as  in  the  cul- 
tus;  as  such,  Russian  Christianity  had  the  exalted  task 
of  restoring  to  the  original  purity  of  the  teaching  and 
spirit  of  Christ  the  churches  of  Western  Europe,  both 
the  Roman  Catholic  and  the  Protestant. 

Another  exponent  of  the  Slavophil  dogma  of  Russian 
messianism  was  found  in  A.  S.  Khomyakov  (1804- 
1860),  who  proved  to  be  a  remarkable  theological  sys- 
tematizer  and  exponent  of  the  movement,  as  well  as  a 
keen  polemicist  against  both  Roman  Catholicism  and 
Protestantism.  His  program  likewise  comprised  the 
familiar  thesis:  Europe  is  decaying;  we  must  save  it! 
The  political  economist  of  the  party  was  found  in  Con¬ 
stantine  Aksakov  (1817-1860),  who  advocated  a  sys¬ 
tem  of  theocracy.  Politically,  the  creed  of  Slavophil¬ 
ism,  as  expressed  by  Danilevsky  in  that  Bible  of  later 
Slavophilism,  Russia  and  Europe,  defined  the  task  of 


14  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

Russia  as  consisting  of  the  unification  of  all  Slavic 
nations  in  a  pan-Slavic  federation,  and  at  the  head  of 
the  united  Slavic  world  as  rescuing  Constantinople 
from  the  hands  of  the  Turk.  The  ancient  capital  of 
the  Byzantine  Empire  was  then  to  be  restored  to  the 
headship  of  Eastern  Orthodoxy  under  the  aegis  of  Rus¬ 
sia.  Even  a  most  elementary  knowledge  of  the  policies 
of  the  Russian  government  during  the  World  War  suf¬ 
fices  to  reveal  the  startling  similarities  between  the 
official  and  the  Slavophil  policies;  but  it  ought  to  be 
added  that  official  Russia  was  a  great  deal  more  inter¬ 
ested  in  securing  a  free  outlet  from  the  Black  Sea  than 
in  making  Constantinople  the  ecclesiastical  head  of  the 
East !  Incidentally,  it  helps  to  reveal  the  close  connec¬ 
tion  between  the  slogans  and  policies  of  the  movement 
so  deeply  religious  as  was  Slavophilism,  and  the  official 
imperialistic  expansionist  politics  of  the  state. 

Slavophilism  affected  the  best  religious  minds  of  Rus¬ 
sia  from  that  time  on,  and  thus  was  religiously  much 
more  fruitful  and  important  than  its  opponent,  the 
Westernist  party.  Even  though  held  with  many  impor¬ 
tant  modifications  by  the  later  thinkers,  yet  the  influ¬ 
ence  which  these  ideas  exerted  was  great.  Among 
those  deeply  affected  by  Slavophilism  is  to  be  counted 
the  most  genuinely  Russian  of  the  great  modern  writ¬ 
ers  of  that  nation,  Theodore  M.  Dostoevsky  (1821- 
1881),  whose  thought  gave  an  impulse  and  direction  to 
the  best  minds  in  the  Russian  church;  and  they,  in 
turn,  afford  at  least  a  moderate  promise  of  intellectual 
and  spiritual  reorientation  within  that  vast  com¬ 
munion. 

Dostoevsky  has  been  called  the  “father  of  modern 
Russian  religious  thought,”  and  the  “Russian  Dante.” 
The  problems  with  which  he  was  eternally  occupied 


15 


The  Roots  of  the  Matter 

were  at  bottom  religious  problems.  In  everything  he 
wrote,  he  was  wrestling  with  the  questions  raised  by 
nihilism:  a  denial  of  faith  in  God  and  the  godman, 
and  the  Western  humanistic  affirmation  of  man,  or  the 
superman,  the  mangod.  He  was  constantly  asking 
himself  the  question :  What  becomes  of  the  man  who 
had  lost  all  sense  of  objective  responsibility  and  duty, 
and  who  wishes  to  be  a  law  unto  himself,  affirming  for 
himself  moral  solipsism?  One  may  read  his  Crime  and 
Punishment ,  or  The  Possessed ,  or  his  masterpiece,  The 
Brothers  Karamazov,  and  everywhere  find  the  thinker 
wrestling  with  this  central  problem.  His  answer  rings 
out  clearly  that  man  either  finds  his  salvation  by 
becoming  a  godman,  or  destroys  himself  in  an  attempt 
to  become  a  mangod.  Either  Christ  or  Smerdyakov; 
for  if  there  be  no  God,  then  all  things  are  permitted. 
That  is  the  lesson  of  his  Brothers  Karamazov.  The 
theme  of  theanthropy,  i.e.  of  God  incarnating  himself 
in  man,  runs  like  a  dominant  note  through  most  of  the 
modern  Russian  progressive  thought — the  theme  of  the 
deification  of  the  human,  of  salvation  by  incarnation, 
in  opposition  to  the  anthropocentric  emphasis  of  the 
West. 

In  the  next  place,  Dostoevsky  emphasizes  the  moral 
nature  of  man,  his  moral  freedom,  which  to  him  meant 
primarily  the  consciousness  of  moral  responsibility.  His 
“dark”  heroes  show  how  an  abuse  of  this  most  essential 
characteristic  of  man  as  a  moral  being  leads  to  self- 
destruction,  because  of  its  perversion  into  license.  But 
the  possibility  of  evil  is  necessary  in  order  that  man 
may  freely  and  of  his  own  choice  prefer  good  to  evil. 
Thus  this  is  a  universe  the  chief  object  of  which  is  the 
production  of  moral  beings  who  would  freely  and  out  of 
intelligent  conviction  choose  good,  persistently  and  con- 


16  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

sistently,  because  they  know  the  power  of  evil  which 
leads  to  self-destruction.  This,  then,  is  the  process  of 
salvation,  or  in  other  words,  the  process  of  develop¬ 
ment  of  moral  personalities.  The  way  to  character  is 
only  through  suffering,  through  overcoming  evil, 
through  a  voluntary  choice  of  good.  The  great  fact  of 
free  will  is  the  greatest  human  tragedy,  because  of  the 
possibility  of  its  abuse,  but  it  is  likewise  the  absolutely 
necessary  means  toward  the  greatest  good. 

As  for  Western  Christianity  or  culture,  Dostoevsky 
regarded  both  as  uncongenial  to  the  growth  and  devel¬ 
opment  of  such  a  free  personality  as  he  portrayed  in  his 
idealized  Christian  character,  and  on  that  score 
opposed  Westernism  bitterly.  In  his  overvaluation  of 
the  task  and  destiny  of  Russian  Christianity,  he  often 
exposed  himself  to  the  charge  of  chauvinism,  for  he 
expected  the  regeneration  of  all  Western  Europe  to 
proceed  solely  from  his  “God-incarnating”  nation. 

But  it  was  only  with  Vladimir  S.  Solov’ev  (1853- 
1900)  that  Russia  produced  her  outstanding  religious 
philosopher  of  modern  times,  the  founder  of  her  school 
of  speculative  mysticism.  He  had  affinities  both  with 
the  Slavophils  and  Dostoevsky,  but  he  was  too  thor¬ 
oughly  religious  to  identify  himself  with  a  movement 
which  was  primarily  nationalistic  in  character;  more¬ 
over,  in  distinction  from  Dostoevsky,  although  Solov’ev 
combated  the  same  Western  foe  as  the  great  novelist 
did,  he  was  much  more  clearly  conscious  of  the  inade¬ 
quacy  of  the  official  theology  than  the  former.  He 
developed  a  speculative  system  of  his  own,  wherein  in 
many  features  he  departed  from  the  traditional  doc¬ 
trines.  It  is  essentially  mystical,  but  he  believed  that 
reason  may  be  an  aid  to  a  fuller  understanding  of  the 
mysteries  of  the  divine  economy ;  in  this  respect  he  dif- 


17 


The  Roots  of  the  Matter 

fers  from  the  school  of  alogical  mysticism,  which 
despairs  of  any  aid  the  reason  may  give  in  the  search  for 
truth,  and  consequently  rests  its  case  entirely  with  the 
intuitive,  immediate,  practical  approach  to  God. 

Solov’ev  conceived  the  task  of  religion  to  consist  in 
joining  the  human  life  with  the  divine,  or  to  turn  the 
phrase  about,  in  the  incarnation  of  the  divine  in  the 
human.  This  would  result  in  the  formation  of  a  the- 
anthropic  personality,  or  a  process  of  deification,  but 
without  any  implication  that  the  human  would  cease 
to  be  human  or  become  exclusively  divine,  but  rather 
that  the  combination  of  the  two  would  form  a  divine- 
human  entity.  This  transformatory  process,  although 
God-initiated,  cannot  be  accomplished  without  volun¬ 
tary,  intelligent  human  cooperation.  “Thus  religion 
is  a  divine-human  affair.”11 

Incarnation  was  regarded  by  him  as  the  proper  mode 
of  redemption  and  salvation  for  all  men,  and  this  fea¬ 
ture  forms  the  chief  difference  in  the  theological  formu¬ 
lation  of  this  particular  doctrine  between  the  East  and 
the  West,  for  Solov’ev  followed  the  best  and  the  most 
ancient  traditions  of  the  East  in  the  matter.  The  incar¬ 
nation  is  not  an  isolated  phenomenon,  but  the  uniform 
method  of  salvation  of  all  men.  The  Western  dogmas 
of  juridical  justification  of  the  Anselmic  satisfaction 
theory,  or  the  substitutionary  atonement  of  the  older 
Protestant  theology,  were  rejected  as  “opposed  both 
to  a  philosophical  apprehension  as  well  as  all  truly 
Christian  feeling.”  12 

But  equally  important  in  Solov’ev’s  system  was  his 
insistence  upon  the  human  free  will,  upon  a  free  and 

11  Collected  Works  of  V.  S.  Solov’ev,  Vol.  Ill,  The  Spiritual  Bases 
of  Life,  St.  Petersburg,  p.  270.  (In  Russian.) 

12  Solov’ev,  op.,  cit,  Vol.  Ill,  Discourses  about  Theanthropy,  p.  152. 


18  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

voluntary  as  well  as  intelligent  acceptance  of  the  thean- 
thropic  process,  and  an  unconstrained  cooperation 
with  it  on  the  part  of  the  human  agent.  This  saving 
process,  resulting  in  a  thean thropic  personality,  is  the 
method  of  individual  salvation.  The  church  is  com¬ 
posed  of  such  theanthropic  individuals,  and  is  destined 
to  become  coextensive  with  mankind.  The  goal  of 
cosmic  history  is  “the  incarnation  of  the  divine  idea  in 
the  world.” 

Passing  then  to  a  discussion  of  the  historic  Christian 
communions,  Solov’ev  manifested  the  characteristic 
Slavophil  aversion  to  the  Western  forms  of  Christian¬ 
ity,  although  with  most  significant  and  important  mod¬ 
ifications.  Indeed,  far  from  rejecting  them,  he  only 
pointed  out  what  he  considered  to  be  their  erroneous 
overemphasis  upon  rightful,  and  in  fact  necessary,  prin¬ 
ciples;  and  far  from  exalting  his  own  above  the  rest, 
he  held  that  a  perfect,  full-orbed,  all-harmonious  Chris¬ 
tianity  can  be  obtained  only  by  a  synthesis,  or  a  union, 
of  all  the  ideal  elements  of  the  various  communions  of 
Christendom.  In  this  respect,  then,  Solov’ev  repre¬ 
sented  a  synthesis  between  the  concepts  of  the  Slavo¬ 
phils  and  those  of  the  religious  Westerners. 

His  chief  criticism  of  Roman  Catholicism  rested 
upon  its  attempt  to  establish  the  divine  economy  in  the 
world  by  force.  This  he  regarded  as  an  essential  denial 
of  the  very  heart  of  Christ’s  gospel,  that  love  and  truth 
are  stronger  than  evil  and  error.  The  kingdom  of  God 
could  not  be  imposed  upon  an  unwilling  humanity  by 
force;  it  must  be  intelligently  understood  and  voluntar¬ 
ily  accepted.  18 

The  historical  justification  of  Protestantism  was  to 
be  found  in  its  opposition  to  just  this  rule  of  force  in 

18  Ibid.,  p.  181. 


19 


The  Roots  of  the  Matter 

spiritual  matters,  this  program  of  enforced  salvation. 
Protestantism  demanded  full  rights  for  a  free  spiritual 
personality.  But  the  only  criterion  it  set  up  was  the 
Bible,  and  the  consequent  need  of  interpretation  of  it 
called  forth  the  activity  of  the  individual  reason,  which 
in  the  end  became  the  standard  of  religious  truth.  Thus 
Protestantism  naturally  tended  toward  subjectivism 
and  rationalism,  which  found  its  purest  expression  in 
Hegelianism.  Consequently,  it  set  itself  against  many 
tenets  of  the  revealed  truth  as  held  by  Catholic  Chris- 
tionity.  Hence  both  the  Roman  Catholic  and  the 
Protestant  communions  erred  in  part,  one  in  the  direc¬ 
tion  of  denying  freedom  to  the  individual  conscience, 
and  the  other  in  the  opposite  direction  of  denying 
rightful  authority. 

The  Eastern  churches,  on  the  contrary,  avoided  both 
these  faults,  and  thus  have  preserved  the  Christian 
truth  intact,  although  they  have  never  realized  it  in  a 
true  Christian  culture.  Nevertheless,  the  ideal  church 
must  comprise  not  only  the  orthodox  Catholic  tenets, 
but  also  a  single,  corporate,  unified  ecclesiastical 
organization  and  rule;  in  other  words,  it  must  be  a 
synthesis  of  the  various  fundamental  principles  of  all 
historic  Christian  communions.  This  conviction  made 
Solov’ev  the  chief  exponent  of  the  idea  of  church  union. 

It  was  this  aspect  of  Solov’ev’s  program  which 
aroused  against  him  the  greatest  amount  of  opposition 
on  the  part  of  the  ecclesiastical  officialdom.  He  stated 
the  case  for  union  of  Christendom  in  his  book  entitled 
The  Great  Controversy  and  Christian  Politics' 4  in 
which  he  defined  the  goal  of  Christian  politics  as  that 
of  bringing  about  a  free  union  of  humanity  in  the 
church  of  Christ.  He  freely  acknowledged  as  valid  and 

14  Solov’ev:  op.  tit.,  V ol.  IV. 


20  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

indispensable  the  great  idea  of  Roman  Catholicism — 
centralized  authority,  order,  and  discipline.  This  cen¬ 
tralization  of  authority  is  needful  for  the  whole  church, 
and  since  it  is  already  established  within  the  Roman 
communion,  it  should  be  freely  and  voluntarily 
acknowledged  and  accepted  for  themselves  by  the 
remaining  communions  as  necessary  for  the  highest 
efficiency,  but  must  not  be  imposed  or  enforced  upon 
any  unwilling  branch  of  the  church.  The  Eastern 
church,  on  the  other  hand,  has  always  placed  emphasis 
upon  preservation  of  the  purity  of  the  dogmatic  system 
— orthodoxy — and  in  so  far  has  done  right.  This  special 
contribution  of  the  Eastern  churches  should  likewise 
be  freely  accepted  by  the  rest  of  Christendom. 

We,  Easterners,  are  right  in  defending  the  sanctity  of 
ecclesiastical  tradition ;  the  Catholics  are  right  in 
defending  the  unity  and  independence  of  ecclesiastical 
rule.  Both  we  and  they  are  more  or  less  guilty  of 
unwillingness  to  acknowledge  the  inseparableness  of 
these  elements  in  the  plenum  of  ecclesiastical  life,  the 
equal  necessity  of  both  for  the  perfection  of  the 
church.16 

In  spite  of  the  fundamentally  mystical  character  of 
Solov’ev’s  concept  of  Christianity — for  he  did  not 
derive  his  conclusions  from  reason  alone,  nor  from  the 
moral  or  religious  sense,  but  defined  it  in  essentially 
mystical  terms  as  a  process  of  theanthropy — he  believed 
that  it  could  be  stated  and  apprehended  in  logical 
terms.  In  this  respect  he  was  followed  by  Prince 
Eugene  N.  Trubetskoy  (1865-1919),  who  was  his  chief 
modern  disciple.  Prince  Trubetskoy  developed  his 
concept  of  Christianity  in  his  work  on  The  Meaning  of 

lu  The  Great  Controversy  and  Christian  Politics,  p.  103. 


21 


The  Roots  of  the  Matter 

Life.19  In  this  book  we  find  the  familiar  outlines  of  a 
theological  system  very  similar  to  that  of  Solov’ev’s, 
although  it  is  presented  in  a  more  philosophical  termi¬ 
nology.  The  godman,  the  theanthropic  personality,  is 
to  him  the  goal  of  all  evolution,  as  it  was  to  Solov’ev. 
It  is  interesting  to  notice  in  this  connection  the  con¬ 
clusion  that  he  drew  from  the  doctrine  of  incarnation : 
he  attempted  to  justify  the  use  of  sacred  pictures,  the 
icons,  against  the  aspersions  of  Protestants,  by  advanc¬ 
ing  the  argument  that  they  were  concrete  affirmations 
of  the  truth  of  incarnation,  i.e.  of  the  possibility  of 
depicting  the  divine  in  human  form.  There  is,  of 
course,  nothing  distinctly  original  in  this  argument,  for 
it  was  used  by  Theodore  of  Studion  during  the  icono¬ 
clastic  controversies. 

Trubetskoy  likewise  stressed  that  second  cardinal 
doctrine  of  the  Russian  progressive  school,  namely,  the 
moral  freedom  of  the  individual,  which  is  his  greatest 
potentiality,  but  likewise  the  cause  of  sin.  “Divine 
love  does  not  desire  an  automaton  in  man,  but  a  friend. 
Therein  is  the  justification  of  freedom:  without  free¬ 
dom  there  is  no  friendship,  and  without  friendship  no 
love.”  17  Eternal  opposition  to  God’s  purpose  results  in 
eternal  death.  Many  passages  seem  to  indicate  that 
this  concept  contemplates  annihilation.  “All  power  of 
evil  is  only  in  time  and  for  a  time.”  “In  eternity  evil 
will  cease  to  be  real.”  18  Involuntarily  one  is  reminded 
of  the  great  mystic  of  the  Middle  Ages,  Meister  Eck- 
hart,  to  whom  also  evil  was  only  privation,  and  pos¬ 
sessed  no  real  positive  character.  But  Trubetskoy  was 
too  indefinite  in  his  statements  to  warrant  a  categorical 

18  Berlin,  1922.  (In  Russian.) 

17  Ibid.,  p.  104. 

18  Ibid.,  p.  135. 


22  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

definition.  He  likewise  rejected  all  ideas  of  salvation 
by  someone  else’s  merit,  and  made  that  a  moral  con¬ 
cept:  a  free,  voluntary  acceptance  of  the  divine  and 
union  with  it,  resultant  in  a  theanthropic  personality. 
But  he  decidedly  spoiled  this  idea  by  identifying  the 
union  with  the  partaking  of  the  Eucharist,19  which,  of 
course,  is  to  be  understood  as  a  case  of  capitulation  to 
the  official  theology.  Such  instances,  by  the  way,  are 
by  no  means  rare. 

But  his  fundamental  position,  defended  against  the 
protagonists  of  the  school  of  alogical  mysticism,  is  his 
affirmation  of  a  logical  apperception  of  the  eternal  veri¬ 
ties  against  the  assertion  that  these  truths  cannot  be 
known  but  are  only  intuitively,  mystically,  mediated. 

The  school  of  alogical  mysticism  comprises  many 
of  the  present-day  Russian  religious  thinkers,  such  as 
P.  A.  Florensky,  N.  A.  Berdyaev,  and  S.  N.  Bulgakov, 
to  name  only  the  most  important.  But  no  attempt  can 
be  made  to  present  their  teaching  in  detail.20  In  gen¬ 
eral,  they  all  oppose  rationalism  on  the  ground  that  it 
leads  to  self-assertion  and  self-affirmation,  which  is  the 
very  essence  of  separation  from  God.21  The  mysteries 
of  religion  are  by  their  own  concept  contradictory  to 
reason.  The  chief  spokesman  for  the  party  is  P.  A. 
Florensky,  to  whom  the  very  attempt  to  work  out  a 
reasonable  religious  theory  is  “the  element  of  diabolic 
pride,  a  desire  not  to  receive  God  into  oneself,  but  to 
pass  oneself  for  God — a  presumption  and  self-will.”  22 
Reason  has  no  part  in  the  act  of  faith ;  it  may  only  sub- 

19  Ibid.,  p.  206. 

80  Cf.  Nicholas  Lossky:  “The  Successors  of  Vladimir  Solovyef,” 
in  The  Slavonic  Review,  June,  1924. 

21  Cf.  N.  A.  Berdyaev:  The  Meaning  of  History,  Berlin,  1923, 
pp.  153ff.  (In  Russian.) 

22  P.  A.  Florensky:  The  PiUar  and  Affirmation  of  Truth,  Moscow, 
1914,  p.  65.  (In  Russian.) 


23 


The  Roots  of  the  Matter 

mit  itself  in  dutiful  silence.  Truth  cannot  be  known; 
it  must  be  accepted.  Florensky  expresses  this  thought 
in  his  frank  avowal: 

I  do  not  even  know  whether  Truth  exists  or  not.  But 
I  feel  with  all  my  heart  that  I  cannot  live  without  it. 
And  I  know  that  if  it  exists,  it  is  my  all:  my  reason,  my 
good,  my  strength,  my  life,  and  my  happiness.  It  is 
possible  that  it  does  not  exist;  but  I  love  it  more  than 
anything  else  which  does  exist.  I  relate  myself  to  it 
as  if  it  were  existent,  and  love  it — even  though  it  per¬ 
haps  does  not  exist — with  all  my  soul  and  all  my  intel¬ 
lect.  For  its  sake  I  reject  all  else,  even  my  questionings 
and  my  doubts.”  23 

Thus  there  is  no  bridge  between  reason  and  faith. 
God  saves  men,  but  they  do  not  even  know  how,  and 
cannot  know  it.  This  mystical  rhetoric  really  spells  the 
utter  despair  of  reason,  and  brings  the  entire  progres¬ 
sive  movement  dangerously  near  to  bankruptcy,  for  it 
is  akin  to  a  capitulation  to  the  official  system.  But  the 
saving  difference  is  that  of  principle:  the  official  sys¬ 
tem  requires  acquiescence  in  the  dictates  of  external 
authority,  while  this  mystical  approach  fundamentally 
rests  upon  an  individual  experience  of  God. 

As  has  already  been  mentioned,  the  introduction  of 
the  Western  culture  and  spirit  produced,  aside  from 
the  Slavophils  and  their  successors,  another  group, 
which  believed  that  Russia’s  only  hope  of  development 
and  greatness  lay  in  the  acceptance  of  Western  culture, 
and  wished  to  transform  Russia  into  a  thoroughly 
Europeanized  country.  The  line  of  the  Westerners,  as 
far  as  religious  thought  was  concerned,  was  headed  by 
Peter  J.  Chaadaev  (1794-1856);  he  was  not  a  profes- 


28  Ibid,.,  pp.  67-68. 


24  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

sional  theologian,  but  a  retired  army  officer.  He  pub¬ 
lished,  in  1836,  a  Philosophical  Letter,  in  which  he 
rejected  in  a  rather  indiscriminate  and  undifferentiat¬ 
ing  manner  all  things  Russian,  and  enthusiastically 
accepted  and  extolled  all  things  European.  With  him, 
the  rejection  of  official  Russian  Orthodoxy  begins,  but 
in  its  place  he  would  have  Russia  accept  Roman 
Catholicism,  which  he  mistook  for  the  efficient  cause  of 
European — particularly  French — culture.  In  a  sense, 
therefore,  the  Westerners  were  cultural  exponents  of 
the  policy  of  Peter  the  Great,  while  to  the  Slavophils 
the  ruthless  tsar  was  anathema,  and  they  idealized 
the  pre-Petrine  Russia.  The  lead  of  Chaadaev,  as  far 
as  the  trend  toward  Westernism  was  concerned,  was 
followed  by  a  very  large  number  of  educated  Russians. 
Many  of  the  outstanding  writers  like  Belinsky,  Tur¬ 
genev,  and  Herzen,  as  well  as  others,  were  Westerners, 
and  their  influence  was  enormous.  The  party  largely 
followed  the  philosophical  leadership  of  Hegel,  later 
of  the  Hegelian  left,  thus  differentiating  itself  from  the 
Slavophils,  who  were  predominantly  followers  of 
Schelling.  Religiously,  most  of  them  scornfully 
rejected  the  official  theological  system  as  hopelessly 
mythological  and  irrational,  but  rested  satisfied  with 
their  philosophical  negations;  hence,  contrary  to  the 
Slavophils,  the  Westerners  were  religiously  sterile, 
or  followed  Comtian  positivism  and  fetishism,  or 
Feuerbach’s  anthropism.  Their  morality  was  utili¬ 
tarian,  in  opposition  to  the  ascetic  other-worldliness  of 
Byzantinism.  Politically,  they  were  ardent  liberals 
and  determined  opponents  of  the  tsarist  absolutism, 
even  thus  manifesting  a  sharp  contrast  with  the  con¬ 
servative  and  chauvinistic  Slavophils.  Thus,  on  the 
whole,  the  Westerners  became  hopelessly  alienated 


25 


The  Roots  of  the  Matter 

from  the  church,  regarding  Russian  Christendom  as  a 
compound  of  mystagogy,  magic,  superstition,  and  a 
powerful  obscurantist  force  which  fanatically  resisted 
all  progress,  enlightenment,  and  the  highest  good  of 
humanity. 

A  few  characterizations  of  the  leaders  of  this  group 
will  suffice.  Thus,  for  instance,  V.  G.  Belinsky  (1811- 
1848),  the  brilliant  literary  critic  and  the  acknowledged 
leader  of  the  progressive  group  of  the  first  half  of  the 
nineteenth  century,  passed  from  Schelling,  through 
Hegel,  to  Feuerbach,  and  to  positivism,  materialism, 
and  atheism ;  politically  he  was  a  believer  in  democracy 
and  socialism.  During  his  Hegelian  period,  he  was 
inclined  to  tolerate  the  oppressive  realities  of  the  Rus¬ 
sian  autocracy,  because  of  the  dictum  that  whatever  is 
real  is  ipso  facto  rational.  But  later,  Feuerbach  and 
Strauss  supplanted  Hegel,  with  the  result  that  the 
earthly  god  of  Russia,  the  tsar,  suffered  the  same  fate 
in  the  estimation  of  Belinsky  as  the  heavenly  monarch. 
When  his  old  friend,  Gogol,  the  famous  author  of 
Dead  Souls ,  was  converted  to  the  tenets  of  the  Ortho¬ 
dox  church,  and  in  his  Selected  Passages  from  Letters 
to  Friends  24  enthusiastically  espoused  the  official  cause 
of  the  church,  Belinsky  unhesitatingly  broke  all  con¬ 
nections  with  him  and  wrote  against  him  an  open  letter 
which  became  the  acknowledged  program  of  the  pro¬ 
gressive  party.  It  was  for  the  crime  of  having  read  this 
letter  of  Belinsky’s  in  a  meeting  of  kindred  spirits  that 
Dostoevsky  and  others  were  sentenced  to  death,  but 
later  this  horrible  verdict  was  commuted  to  a  term  in  a 
Siberian  prison  and  exile.  What  Russia  needs,  cried 
Belinsky,  is  law  and  order,  justice  and  enlightenment, 

24  Complete  Collection  of  the  Works  of  N.  V.  Gogol,  Berlin,  1921, 
Vol.  IX.  (In  Russian.) 


26  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

rational  education,  and  no  mystical  Orthodoxy  with  its 
passive  submission  to  the  existing  wrongs.  The  strug¬ 
gle  was  directed  against  the  superstition  and  obscur¬ 
antism  of  the  Russian  church.  But  that  did  not  mean 
that  Belinsky  was  irreligious.  As  T.  G.  Masaryk  so 
well  expressed  it,  the  opposition  of  Belinsky,  just  as  of 
Voltaire,  was  directed  against  the  ecclesiasticized,  cler- 
icalized  religiosity  of  the  church,  and  not  against  reli¬ 
gion  as  such.  “We  have  not  yet  solved  the  problem  of 
the  existence  of  God,  and  you  want  to  eat!”  Belinsky 
once  vehemently  rebuked  Turgenev,  who  grew  tired  of 
a  discussion  about  the  topic.26 

Alexander  I.  Herzen  (1812-1870),  who  had  emigrated 
from  Russia  and  from  1847  to  his  death  lived  in 
Europe,  mostly  in  England,  left  his  native  land  in  order 
to  gain  freedom  of  expression  for  his  radical  liberalism. 
He  was  one  of  the  most  important  figures  in  the  entire 
literary  history  of  Russia,  as  well  as  the  leader  of  the 
progressive  youth  of  “the  sixties,”  and  his  Kolokol 
( The  Bell),  published  in  London  and  regularly  smug¬ 
gled  into  Russia  in  thousands  of  copies,  led  the  pro¬ 
gressive  liberalism  of  the  younger  set ;  even  Tsar  Alex¬ 
ander  read  it  regularly,  “to  keep  himself  informed.” 
To  Herzen,  the  old  political  regime  of  absolutism 
rested  upon  theological  prepossessions  and  ideology; 
hence  the  first  step  in  the  direction  of  overthrowing  the 
theocratic  absolutism  consisted  in  gaining  freedom 
from  the  thraldom  of  theological  doctrinairism.  The 
church  and  the  state  stand  or  fall  together.  The  gen¬ 
uine  revolution,  therefore,  must  be  socialistic  and  athe¬ 
ist-materialistic.  He,  however,  differed  from  such  men 
as  Bakunin  in  holding  that  a  revolution,  i.e.  a  trans¬ 
formation  of  an  absolutistic  state  into  a  truly  demo- 

28  Masaryk:  The  Spirit  of  Russia,  Vol.  I,  p.  449. 


27 


The  Roots  of  the  Matter 

cratic  one,  could  not  be  accomplished  by  a  coup  d’etat. 
It  could  only  be  brought  about  by  education;  not 
by  an  external  compulsion  and  force,  but  by  an  inner, 
spiritual  liberation  and  development.  Hence  he  was 
against  nihilistic  terrorism. 

Although  quite  different  from  the  two  preceding  rep¬ 
resentatives  of  Westernism,  and  hardly  a  Westemist 
himself,  yet  by  his  rejection  of  the  official  Christian 
systems,  Count  Lev  N.  Tolstoy  may  properly  be  men¬ 
tioned  in  this  connection.  As  he  himself  told  us  in  his 
Confession ,26  he,  like  the  great  majority  of  men  of  his 
class,  had  early  “discarded  all  belief  in  anything  that 
he  was  taught”  religiously.  He  had  lived  the  life  of  a 
typical  representative  of  the  Russian  intelligentsia 
until  at  the  age  of  fifty  he  passed  through  a  religious 
crisis.  At  first  he  sought  to  force  himself  to  believe 
indiscriminately  everything  that  the  church  taught 
him,  hoping  that  in  some  mysterious  fashion  he  might 
find  the  meaning  of  the  riddle  of  existence.  But  after 
several  years  of  such  conscientious  spiritual  drudgery 
he  became  convinced  of  the  uselessness  of  his  experi¬ 
ment,  and  rejected  all  Christian  systems,  Orthodox, 
Roman  Catholic,  and  Protestant  alike,  adopting  for  his 
religious  creed  “the  five  laws  of  Jesus”:  be  not  angry; 
do  not  commit  adultery ;  take  no  oaths ;  resist  not  evil ; 
and  do  not  make  war.27  From  that  time  on  he  often 
denounced  in  the  most  scathing  terms  the  historic 
Christian  communions,  especially  the  Russian  Ortho¬ 
dox,  and  was  in  turn  excommunicated  by  that  church  in 
1901.  But  in  spite  of  the  seemingly  ruthless  rational¬ 
ism  of  Tolstoy,  his  attitude  toward  what  he  regarded  as 
the  real  gospel  of  Jesus  was  quite  uncritical  and  dog- 

28  Count  Lev  N.  Tolstoy:  My  Confession ,  New  York,  1887. 

27  Idem.,  My  Religion ,  New  York,  1885,  p.  242. 


{BOSTON  COLLEGE  L1BRAR 
CHESTNU1  HILL.  MASS. 


28  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

matic.  Tolstoy,  contrary  to  common  Western  opinion, 
is  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  leading  Russian  religious 
thinker,  and  it  is  improbable  that  his  compatriots  will 
be  extensively  influenced  by  his  religious  radicalism. 
His  following  forms  a  small  sectarian  body  at  the 
present  time,  and  is  not  likely  to  grow. 

The  Westernist  progressive  party,  under  radical 
influences  emanating  from  countries  like  Germany  and 
France,  differentiated  itself  into  the  nihilist,  and  later 
into  the  terrorist,  organizations.  This  radical  wing  was 
frankly  atheistic,  socialistic,  communistic,  or  anarchis¬ 
tic,  having  passed  largely  under  the  influence  of  the 
Western  socialism  of  Marx  and  Engels.  Michael  A. 
Bakunin  (1814-1876)  was  the  father  of  Russian  an¬ 
archism.  Bakunin  was  neither  a  thinker  nor  a  great 
leader;  his  contribution  to  the  revolutionary  ideology 
is  to  be  understood  in  terms  of  a  human  being  so  exas¬ 
perated  by  the  stupid  and  unjust  social  organization 
that  he,  the  victim  of  the  system,  in  an  unreasoning 
rage,  resolves  to  destroy  and  annihilate  it.  His  entire 
life  was  an  expression  of  this  crude  impulse.  It  would 
be  difficult  to  understand  the  comparative  success  of 
Bakunin’s  gospel  of  pan-destruction,  were  it  not  for  the 
circumstance  that  so  many  ardent  young  spirits,  burn¬ 
ing  with  moral  indignation  at  the  sight  of  the  oppres¬ 
sion  and  appalling  injustice  which  they  observed  about 
them,  and  of  which  they,  too,  were  victims,  were 
directly  provoked  into  a  similar  mood  of  impotent  rage, 
and  into  this  same  desire  utterly  to  destroy  the  iniqui¬ 
tous  thing. 

As  far  as  the  official  theology  of  the  church  was  con¬ 
cerned,  Bakunin,  like  other  men  of  his  kind,  regarded 
it  as  superstition.  To  him,  atheism  was  a  liberalizing 
force,  freeing  man  from  all  external  authority.  The 


29 


The  Roots  of  the  Matter 

church  was  likened  by  him  to  “a  heavenly  dramshop” 
where  men  were  drugged  to  forget  their  temporal  mis¬ 
eries.  One  is  involuntarily  reminded  of  the  analogous 
Marxian  dictum  that  “religion  is  the  opium  of  the 
people,”  so  effectively  inscribed  by  the  Soviet  authori¬ 
ties  on  the  building  opposite  the  famous  shrine  of  the 
Iverian  Virgin  in  Moscow.  Religion,  to  Bakunin,  was 
a  temporary  theological  stage  of  human  development, 
just  about  to  be  supplanted  by  the  last  and  highest 
stage,  positivistic  science.  The  goal  of  all  history  and 
development  is  the  absolute  equality  of  humankind, 
where  no  external  compulsory  authority  would  con¬ 
strain  the  individual  will:  this  would  be  the  period  of 
anarchy — absence  of  rule.  Therefore  Bakunin  recog¬ 
nized  no  authority;  for  with  the  fall  of  divine  sanctions 
every  other  basis  of  authority  had  disappeared. 

This  Russian  gospel  of  pan-destruction  took  on  the 
peculiar  form  of  nihilism,  so  well  depicted  in  the  person 
of  Bazarov  in  Turgenev’s  novel  Fathers  and  Sons. 
Bazarov  insisted  that  he  believed  in  nothing  but 
“frogs,”  as  he  capriciously  expressed  it,  meaning 
thereby  his  belief  in  natural  sciences,  and  that  only  by 
exact  scientific  knowledge,  to  be  obtained  from  the 
study  of  nature — for  instance,  dissecting  frogs — could 
Russia  be  saved.  This  faith  was  shared  by  all  nihilistic 
rejecters  of  “faith,”  as  that  concept  was  identified  with 
the  superstitious  credulity  demanded  by  the  official 
ecclesiastical  dogmatism;  but  in  so  far  as  they  them¬ 
selves  were  Russians,  too,  they  believed  with  equally 
ardent  and  uncritical  enthusiasm  in  their  atheistic 
materialism  and  in  their  dogmatic  panaceas  for  the 
perfecting  of  society.  The  leading  figures  among  them 
were  Chernyshevsky,  Dobrolyubov,  and  Pisarev. 

Nicholas  G.  Chernyshevsky  (1828-1889)  was  an 


30  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

influential  publicist  who  popularized  the  conclusions 
of  positivistic  materialism.  He  was  chiefly  a  disciple 
of  Feuerbach,  whose  writings  he  knew  almost  by  heart. 
His  influence  upon  the  younger  intelligentsia  of  the 
sixties  was  so  marked  that  the  nihilists,  as  the  group 
was  called,  largely  reproduced  his  point  of  view. 

Chernyshevsky ’s  enormous  influence  was  exercised 
through  a  magazine  which  he  edited;  but  the  govern¬ 
ment  considered  his  very  fecund  literary  activity  so 
dangerous  that  he  was  arrested  in  1862  and  sentenced 
to  hard  labor  in  the  Siberian  mines  for  the  term  of 
fourteen  years.  While  he  was  in  a  Petersburg  prison, 
he  wrote  his  very  widely  read  novel  What  is  to  be 
done f  (1863),  which  became  the  working  program 
of  the  younger  radical  generation.  Chernyshevsky 
advanced  in  this  work  to  uncompromising  commu¬ 
nism  :  the  hero  of  the  novel,  Rakhmetov,  did  not  flinch 
before  the  conclusion:  “My  shirt — your  shirt;  my  pipe 
— your  pipe;  my  wife — your  wife.”  Masaryk  char¬ 
acterizes  the  book  as  “the  gospel  of  nihilism.”  28 

Another  ardent  apostle  of  nihilism,  Dobrolyubov, 
was  originally  educated  for  the  priesthood,  but  became 
a  disciple  and  friend  of  Chernyshevsky,  and  as  such  a 
determined  opponent  of  “the  kingdom  of  darkness.”  He 
was  a  colaborer  with  his  teacher  in  the  latter’s  literary 
review,  and  became  a  redoubtable  literary  critic.  Pisa¬ 
rev  also  was  a  critic,  and  as  such  continued  the  work  of 
Dobrolyubov,  who  died  young.  He,  too,  doggedly 
fought  against  theocracy,  tsarism,  and  the  church, 
drawing  his  inspiration  not  only  from  Feuerbach,  but 
even  from  later  materialistic  scientists  like  Vogt  and 
Moleschott. 

Under  these  conditions,  the  various  Western  influ- 

28  Loc.  cit.,  Vol.  II,  Part  I,  p.  64. 


31 


The  Roots  of  the  Matter 

ences  conspired  to  make  of  educated  Russians  most 
determined  opponents  of  the  existing  tyrannous  regime 
as  well  as  of  the  prevailing  social  conditions.  The  nat¬ 
ural  sciences,  especially  Darwinism,  the  philosophy  of 
Comte  and  Feuerbach,  the  historical  views  of  Buckley 
as  well  as  the  socialistic  literature,  all  became  known 
and  largely  accepted  by  Russia.  Almost  every  member 
of  the  intelligentsia  of  the  sixties  was  a  democrat  or  a 
socialist,  a  Darwinian  in  science,  a  materialistic  atheist, 
a  positivist,  a  believer  in  woman  suffrage,  and  a  con¬ 
vinced  opponent  of  the  status  quo.  The  whole  tone  of 
the  educated  society  was  negative,  revolutionary,  and 
it  could  not  be  otherwise,  because  of  the  oppression 
with  which  the  state  persecuted  every  suggestion  of  the 
liberals  in  the  political,  the  economic,  or  the  religious 
fields.  Literature  of  the  period  is  full  of  this  spirit,  in 
spite  of  the  strict  censorship.  The  foci  of  this  seething 
discontent  were  the  universities  and  schools  of  higher 
education,  and  the  revolutionary  spirit  was  shared  by 
both  men  and  women.  Indeed,  it  is  remarkable  what  a 
large  role  women  played  in  the  struggle.  They  were 
found  among  the  active  terrorists,  and  their  numbers 
reached  one  fifth  of  the  whole  number. 

From  theory,  so  cruelly  persecuted,  the  nihilist 
movement  passed  over  to  practice.  Since  no  legitimate 
public  opposition  through  literary  channels  was  pos¬ 
sible,  for  the  organs  like  Chernyshevsky’s  Contempo¬ 
rary  and  The  Russian  Word  were  suspended  by  the 
government,  and  their  editors  imprisoned,  the  ardent 
liberals,  hopeless  of  any  other  means  of  amelioration, 
and  with  their  souls  in  revolt  at  the  sight  of  the  injus¬ 
tice  and  tyranny  to  which  they  and  all  Russia  were 
subjected,  resorted  to  secret  plottings  of  violent  meas¬ 
ures.  They  began  publishing  in  a  secret  printing-office 


32  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

a  periodical  entitled  The  Great  Russia ,  which  furthered 
the  idea  of  appealing  to  the  tsar  to  call  a  constituent 
assembly  and  grant  a  constitution.  Aside  from  this 
demand  for  the  transformation  of  Russia  into  a  consti¬ 
tutional  monarchy,  there  also  appeared  many  more 
radically  tempered  appeals  demanding  organization  of 
Russia  upon  socialistic  bases. 

Early  in  1862,  a  radical  proclamation  known  as  The 
Young  Russia  pronounced  a  bloody  uprising  against 
the  existing  regime,  and  its  final  overthrow,  as  the  only 
possible  means  of  liberating  Russia  from  the  thraldom 
of  the  tsarist  autocracy.  With  their  youthful  confi¬ 
dence  “in  ourselves,  in  our  own  strength,  in  the  favor 
of  the  people,  and  in  an  honorable  future  of  Russia 
which  is  destined  by  fate  to  be  the  first  to  realize  the 
socialistic  program,”  they  proposed  to  appeal  to  the 
tsar  for  cooperation,  which,  however,  they  confidently 
expected  to  be  refused.  Thereupon  they  proposed  to 
issue  the  summons: 

Snatch  your  axes  .  .  .  and  then  .  .  .  hack  the 
tsarist  party  without  mercy  as  it  now  knows  no  mercy 
toward  us,  hack  it  in  the  city-squares,  if  its  degraded 
hirelings  should  dare  to  show  themselves  there,  hack  it 
in  the  houses,  hack  it  in  the  narrow  city  alleys,  hack  it 
in  the  wide  streets  of  the  large  cities,  hack  it  in  the 
villages  and  in  the  solitary  dwellings. 

And  do  not  forget  to  shout  with  each  new  victory, 
with  each  new  struggle:  Long  live  the  socialistic  and 
democratic  republic  of  Russia!  88 

Shortly  after  the  publication  of  this  manifesto,  St. 
Petersburg  and  other  cities  were  terrified  by  a  large 
number  of  fires  started  by  incendiaries,  and  it  was  com- 

29  Masaryk:  op.  cit.,  Vol.  II,  Part  I,  p.  147. 


33 


The  Roots  of  the  Matter 

monly  supposed  that  these  criminal  acts  were  but  a 
part  of  the  revolutionary  program.  The  government 
now  became  aroused  and  took  stringent  measures  for 
the  suppression  of  the  whole  widely  ramified  revolu¬ 
tionary  movement. 

The  movement,  thus  driven  underground,  organized 
itself  (in  1862)  into  the  first  secret  revolutionary  soci¬ 
ety,  The  Land  and  Liberty,  taking  its  name  from  a  pub¬ 
lication  bearing  that  title.  But  this  one,  as  well  as 
practically  all  other  similar  secret  societies,  was  broken 
up  by  the  secret  police  in  1863,  so  that  it  could  then  be 
reported  by  the  police  that  the  whole  revolutionary 
movement  had  been  suppressed.  But  this  was  a  mis¬ 
take.  The  secret  activity  and  propagation  of  radical 
opinions  continued  and  soon  bore  fruit:  in  1866  a  stu¬ 
dent-nobleman,  Karakozov,  attempted  to  assassinate 
Tsar  Alexander  II  by  firing  a  pistol  at  him.  Court 
investigation  established  the  fact  of  his  membership  in 
a  secret  society  called  Hell,  consisting  predominantly 
of  nonregular  students  of  the  Petersburg  and  the  Mos¬ 
cow  universities.  This  discovery  and  implication  of 
many  students  in  the  affair  led  to  the  flight  of  large 
numbers  of  them  from  Russia,  and  thus  made  of  these 
emigres  confirmed  and  professional  revolutionaries. 

The  terrorist  activity  of  the  revolutionary  organiza¬ 
tions  of  the  Left  cost  the  movement  the  sympathy  and 
support  of  the  more  moderate  liberal  groups  which 
aimed  at  constitutionalism  rather  than  socialism,  and 
this  in  turn  helped  the  government  in  its  attempts  to 
suppress  the  whole  movement.  From  1866,  the  gov¬ 
ernment  adopted  a  reactionary,  consciously  anti-liberal 
policy,  especially  manifested  in  the  naming  of  Count 
Dmitri  Tolstoy,  as  minister  of  public  education.  Count 
Tolstoy  was  a  known  reactionary,  who  directed  his 


34  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

attention  to  the  “purification”  of  the  fountains  of  edu¬ 
cation,  the  schools  and  universities.  His  reform  con¬ 
sisted  of  stopping  “the  movements  and  sophisms  which 
brazenly  defy  everything  which  has  been  sacred  to 
Russia  for  ages,  the  religious  faith,  the  foundations 
of  family  life,  the  right  of  property,  the  obedience  to 
law  and  honor  of  the  superior  authority,”  as  it  was 
phrased  in  the  rescript  of  the  tsar  to  the  president  of 
the  ministerial  committee.30  The  so-called  “classi¬ 
cism”  was  introduced  into  secondary  schools,  whereby 
the  ancient  languages  and  in  general  studies  as  far  as 
possible  removed  from  actual  present-day  life  and 
thinking  were  introduced,  in  order  to  protect  the  stu¬ 
dents  from  contracting  modern  liberalism.  This  pro¬ 
gram  lasted  from  1871-93.  Moreover,  the  number  of 
the  university  students  was  arbitrarily  reduced  to 
about  five  percent  of  those  of  the  gymnasia,  by  gradu¬ 
ating  only  that  percentage  from  the  secondary  schools. 
Besides,  the  Zemstva  were  deprived  of  their  control  of 
elementary  local  schools,  which  was  assumed  by  the 
Ministry  of  Education ;  the  latter  was  then  free  to  dis¬ 
miss  all  teachers  who  were  “politically  unreliable.” 

This  period  of  reactionary  policies  on  the  part  of  the 
government  called  forth,  as  a  matter  of  course,  a 
renewed  and  desperately  determined  opposition  from 
the  radical  groups.  The  exiled  leaders,  like  Herzen  in 
London  and  Bakunin  in  Geneva,  published  and  smug¬ 
gled  into  Russia  tons  of  periodical  and  other  revolu¬ 
tionary  literature.  The  student  youth  was  again 
organized  into  secret  societies,  as  was  revealed  in  the 
murder  of  one  of  the  members,  Ivanov,  who  was  sus¬ 
pected  of  wavering  loyalty  to  a  revolutionary  group 
and  sentenced  by  it  to  death. 

80  June  4,  1866. 


35 


The  Roots  of  the  Matter 

This  conspiracy  led  in  turn  to  a  sharpening  of  the 
laws  against  political  agitation,  and  a  considerable 
extension  of  the  powers  of  the  police  in  such  cases.  The 
police  had  the  right  to  arrest  individuals  suspected  of 
political  revolutionary  activity ;  mere  attendance  upon 
a  political  street  manifestation  was  punishable  by  exile 
to  Siberia. 

In  1869  a  student,  Nicholas  Chaikovsky,  founded  a 
student  club  which  studied  socialism.  Similar  societies 
were  founded  with  various  other  objectives,  such  as 
circles  for  self-education,  for  reading,  etc.;  they  also 
represented  many  different  types  of  opinion.  These 
organizations  were  greatly  strengthened  when,  in  1873, 
the  government  withdrew  its  permission  to  study  at 
foreign  universities  and  recalled  those  students  who  at 
the  time  were  studying  abroad.  The  returned  students 
were  very  generally  imbued  with  the  ideas  of  Bakunin 
and  Lavrov,  who  came  in  personal  touch  with  them  in 
Zurich,  where  they  were  editing  a  periodical.  The  rev¬ 
olutionary  agitation,  which  hitherto  had  affected  pri¬ 
marily  the  educated  classes,  especially  students,  now 
entered  upon  a  new  phase  of  development.  The  lead¬ 
ers  determined  to  carry  the  propaganda  directly  to  the 
masses  of  the  Russian  people,  and  to  imbue  them  with 
the  revolutionary  spirit  in  preparation  for  an  uprising 
against  the  existing  government.  Prince  Peter  Kro¬ 
potkin,  the  greatest  of  the  theoretical  anarchists  of 
Russia,  disguised  himself  as  a  workingman,  and  held 
secret  meetings  with  the  Petersburg  working  masses, 
at  which  he  strove  to  awaken  in  them  class-conscious¬ 
ness  by  informing  them  about  the  Western  socialistic 
movements.  This  program  of  “going  among  the  peo¬ 
ple’’  was  enthusiastically  accepted  by  a  large  number 
of  idealistic  young  people  of  both  sexes,  mostly  stu- 


36  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

dents,  who  abandoned  their  intended  careers  and  went 
into  the  country  districts  as  country  teachers,  mid- 
wives,  physicians,  tradesmen,  artisans,  or  even  hired 
themselves  out  as  ordinary  agricultural  laborers,  in 
order  to  gain  access  to  the  peasants  and  to  imbue  them 
with  their  socialistic  ideals  and  distribute  revolution¬ 
ary  literature  among  them.  Some  of  this  work  was 
done  under  clever  disguise,  as,  for  instance,  when  some 
socialistic  pamphlets  were  published  as  sermons  of  the 
bishop  of  Voronezh.  The  number  of  agitators  among 
the  people  was  estimated  in  1875  at  more  than  two 
thousand.  The  reason  they  were  able  to  undertake 
this  work  at  all  was  that  they  enjoyed  the  sympathy 
of  the  local  Zemstva  and  even  of  some  governmental 
officials,  who  shielded  them  and  even  protected  them 
against  arrest.  One  such  justice  of  the  peace,  for 
instance,  contributed  forty  thousand  rubles  to  cover 
the  expenses  of  the  propaganda. 

But,  on  the  whole,  the  program  of  these  idealists, 
who  had  the  characteristically  exaggerated  Slavophil 
notions  regarding  the  “unspoiled  soul”  of  the  muzhiks, 
was  bound  to  result  in  a  dismal  failure.  The  peasant 
was  not  ready  for  a  socialistic  revolution;  in  his  crass 
ignorance  and  superstition,  and  his  stolid  fatalistic 
indifference  and  resignation  to  his  sufferings,  he  was 
incapable  of  being  molded  into  consciously  revolu¬ 
tionary  material.  Moreover,  the  peasants  generally 
believed  that  the  tsar,  their  batushka ,  was  good,  and 
that  all  the  misery  to  which  they  were  subjected  was 
the  work  of  the  landlords  and  the  officials.  In  1876, 
two  agitators  hit  upon  the  plan  of  utilizing  this  confi¬ 
dence  of  the  peasants  in  the  tsar  by  passing  themselves 
off  as  his  representatives.  They  showed  the  muzhiks 
a  document,  the  Golden  Manifesto,  which  they  said 


37 


The  Roots  of  the  Matter 

bore  the  tsar’s  signature,  and  which  urged  the  peas¬ 
ants  to  organize  themselves  into  secret  societies  to  pre¬ 
pare  for  the  expropriation  of  the  landlords,  on  the 
ground  that  the  tsar  had  given  all  land  to  the  peasants. 
In  this  faith  the  peasants  followed  the  directions  of  the 
agitators,  and  built  up  a  considerable  organization.  But 
the  plot  was  discovered  by  the  police  and  frustrated. 
Consequent  investigation  revealed,  however,  that  the 
peasantry  continued  to  believe  that  it  was  the  tsar’s 
purpose  to  give  them  all  the  land,  but  that  he  was  con¬ 
tinually  being  thwarted  by  the  landlords  and  the  offi¬ 
cials.  Therefore,  to  loot  a  landlord  or  oppose  an  official 
was  not  wrong  in  the  peasants’  code  of  ethics. 

It  became  quite  evident,  therefore,  that  a  revolution 
emanating  from  the  peasant  masses  or  supported  by 
them  was  unthinkable.  In  most  instances  they 
betrayed  stolidity  or  a  complete  absence  of  comprehen¬ 
sion  of  the  revolutionary  objectives;  in  other  instances 
they  manifested  lack  of  confidence  in  the  leaders  and 
even  readiness  to  betray  them  to  the  authorities.  More¬ 
over,  since  the  movement  lacked  organization,  the  gov¬ 
ernment  found  it  possible  gradually  to  gain  control  of 
the  situation,  and  to  arrest  and  imprison  the  ardent 
apostles  of  revolt.  The  strengthening  of  the  laws 
against  the  illegal  societies  resulted  in  still  heavier  per¬ 
secution  of  the  social  revolutionaries;  and  yet,  in  1876, 
the  remnants  of  the  former  groups  combined  to  form  a 
new  society,  which  resumed  the  name  of  the  first  revo¬ 
lutionary  organization,  The  Land  and  Liberty.  The 
soul  of  this  new  group  was  Alexander  Mikhailov,  an 
excellent  organizer  and  leader,  so  that  his  society  was 
the  strongest  and  most  important  focus  of  the  revolu¬ 
tionary  activity.  The  outbreak  of  the  Russo-Turkish 
War  (1877)  also  helped  to  consolidate  the  opposition 


38  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

forces,  as  the  incapacity  and  corruption  of  the  govern¬ 
ing  class  were  then  plainly  manifested,  and  the  ener¬ 
gies  of  the  government  were  directed  to  the  prosecution 
of  the  war.  And  yet  the  authorities  did  not  relax  their 
vigilance;  during  this  period,  the  great  trials  of  the 
revolutionary  suspects  were  staged,  when  about  four 
thousand  were  arrested  and  some  of  them  were  sen¬ 
tenced  to  long  prison  terms.  Out  of  this  number,  two 
trials — of  the  fifty,  and  of  the  one-hundred  and  ninety- 
three — aroused  an  enormous  amount  of  public  senti¬ 
ment,  because  the  accused  in  their  speeches  fearlessly 
indicted  the  government,  and  their  sentiments  readily 
found  an  echo  among  the  liberals  everywhere.  The 
government  did  not  dare  to  suppress  these  pronounce¬ 
ments,  for  the  humiliating  terms  imposed  upon  Russia 
by  the  Congress  of  Berlin  aroused  against  it  general 
indignation,  shared  even  by  the  loyal,  conservative 
Slavophils. 

In  1878  Vera  Zasulich  shot  and  wounded  the  Peters¬ 
burg  head  of  police,  General  Trepov,  because  he  had 
illegally  ordered  the  infliction  of  corporal  punishment 
upon  a  student,  a  total  stranger  to  her.  Count  Pahlen, 
then  the  minister  of  justice,  demanded  that  she  be  tried 
by  jury,  for  he  began  to  resent  the  capriciousness  of  the 
police  in  reference  to  his  department.  To  the  amaze¬ 
ment  of  the  public,  Zasulich  was  acquitted,  although 
the  jury  consisted  mostly  of  state  officials.  This  inci¬ 
dent  was  an  eloquent  commentary  on  the  state  of  pub¬ 
lic  opinion  at  the  time  when  even  moderate  liberals 
were  willing  to  cooperate  with  the  nihilists. 

During  the  year,  a  whole  series  of  attacks  upon  the 
lives  of  highly  placed  officials,  and  even  upon  the  tsar 
himself,  finally  produced  a  differentiation  within  The 
Land  and  Liberty  society  itself.  In  1879  the  organiza- 


39 


The  Roots  of  the  Matter 

tion  suffered  a  division  into  two  groups,  of  which  the 
one  committed  to  the  program  of  terror  received  the 
name  The  People’s  Will,  and  the  more  moderate  one, 
which  made  politico-socialistic  propaganda  among  the 
peasants  and  the  workers  its  program,  came  to  be 
known  as  The  Black  Redistribution  (meaning  the 
reallotment  of  the  black  soil). 

The  terrorists  proclaimed  as  their  objective  a  social 
uprising  for  the  purpose  of  gaining  political  freedom 
and  the  establishment  of  a  socialist  state.  The  means 
toward  the  attainment  of  this  goal  included  political 
murder,  regarded  as  judicial  execution,  and  appropria¬ 
tion  of  public  money,  viewed  in  the  light  of  confisca¬ 
tion.  The  leaders  hoped  that  murdering  some  dozens 
of  the  highest  officials  would  bring  about  the  desired 
uprising.  Their  attention  was  especially  centered  upon 
the  murder  of  the  tsar.  In  1879  an  attempt  was  made 
to  entrap  him  when  he  was  returning  from  Crimea,  by 
mining  the  railroad  track  in  three  places;  but  the  tsar 
fortunately  escaped,  for  his  train  followed  the  baggage 
train,  which  was  overtaken  by  the  disaster  prepared  for 
the  tsar’s  entourage.  Next  spring  the  dining-room  of 
the  Winter  Palace  was  blown  up  at  dinner  time,  but 
again  the  tsar  escaped  death  due  to  having  been 
detained  by  a  visit  of  Alexander  of  Bulgaria. 

The  tsar  now  changed  his  policy  radically:  he  called 
to  the  position  of  minister  of  the  interior  a  man  known 
for  his  liberal  opinions,  Count  Loris-Melikov,  and 
granted  him  almost  unlimited  powers,  which  made  him 
practically  a  dictator.  The  new  minister  introduced 
some  really  ameliorating  features  into  the  government’s 
dealing  with  the  question  of  the  revolutionaries,  abol¬ 
ishing  the  infamous  Third  Department  ( i.e .  the  secret 
police),  freeing  some  six  thousand  political  suspects, 


40  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

giving  greater  liberty  of  action  to  the  Zemstva,  com¬ 
posed  mostly  of  liberal  landowners  and  nobles,  and 
obtaining  the  recall  of  Count  D.  Tolstoy  from  the 
position  of  minister  of  national  education.  The  liberal 
circles  of  the  moderate  constitutional  stamp  felt  really 
encouraged  to  hope  for  the  long-desired  reforms,  which 
Loris-Melikov  was  not  backward  in  promising  them. 
But  the  radical  revolutionists  would  not  believe  in  what 
they  regarded  as  a  feint  for  the  purpose  of  beguiling  the 
unwary.  The  concessions  came  too  late.  The  revolu¬ 
tionaries  even  made  an  attempt  upon  the  life  of  the 
dictator.  That  same  year,  three  different  methods  of 
carrying  out  the  tsar’s  assassination  were  adopted. 
When  a  call  for  volunteers  to  throw  the  bomb  was 
issued,  forty-seven  St.  Petersburg  workingmen  were 
ready  to  undertake  the  perilous  task.  Out  of  these,  six 
persons  were  selected.  Finally,  on  March  13,  1881, 
when  the  tsar  was  returning  from  a  review  of  troops,  a 
bomb  was  thrown  under  his  carriage;  it  shattered  the 
carriage  and  wounded  some  members  of  the  entourage, 
but  the  tsar  escaped.  When  he  stepped  forward  to  ask 
the  assailant  who  he  was,  another  assailant  threw  his 
bomb  directly  under  the  tsar’s  feet,  and  this  time  the 
tsar  was  mortally  wounded,  and  the  assailant,  Grin- 
evitsky,  killed.  An  hour  later,  the  tsar  died  in  the  Win¬ 
ter  Palace. 

Four  days  before  his  death,  Alexander  II,  “the  tsar- 
liberator,”  approved  the  so-called  “Constitution”  of 
Count  Loris-Melikov;  three  hours  before  his  death,  he 
ordered  this  “Constitution”  to  be  published  in  the  gov¬ 
ernmental  bulletin.  This  document  really  contem¬ 
plated  calling  together  only  a  representative  consulta¬ 
tive  body,  aside  from  organization  of  commissions  for 
various  reforms.  The  suggestions  and  projects  of  the 


41 


The  Roots  of  the  Matter 

general  commission  were  to  come  for  approval  or  rejec¬ 
tion  of  the  government.  That,  of  course,  was  no  consti¬ 
tution  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word;  yet  it  repre¬ 
sented  certain  concessions  on  the  part  of  the  tsar. 

Alexander  III  (1881-1894),  educated  by  Pobedo- 
nostsev  in  the  spirit  of  the  strictest  Slavophil  conserva¬ 
tism,  at  first  ordered  that  nothing  be  changed  in  the 
ordinances  of  his  father,  not  even  excepting  Loris-Meli- 
kov’s  “Constitution.”  Soon,  however,  he  changed  his 
mind,  and  inaugurated  a  period  of  the  strictest  repres¬ 
sion  and  absolutism.  He  avenged  the  death  of  Alex¬ 
ander  II  by  inaugurating  a  period  of  a  veritable  “white 
terror.” 

In  the  first  place,  he  terminated  the  vacillating  policy 
of  the  previous  reign  between  constitutionalism  and 
absolutism:  he  definitely  chose  the  latter,  and  acted 
consistently  in  accordance  with  that  decision.  Katkov 
went  into  ecstasies  over  this  “return  of  an  absolutistic 
tsar,  who  received  his  power  from  God,  to  whom  alone 
he  is  responsible.”  31  Moreover,  the  chief  adviser  of 
the  tsar,  Pobedonostsev,  with  a  group  of  his  friends, 
organized  a  secret  anti-revolutionary  society,  The  Holy 
Fellowship,  which  used  the  methods  of  the  revolution¬ 
aries — including  murder — to  defeat  its  opponents. 

On  the  tenth  day  after  the  death  of  Alexander  II,  the 
revolutionists  issued  a  manifesto  addressed  to  the  new 
tsar,  in  which  they  offered  him  cessation  of  the  strug¬ 
gle,  should  he  call  representatives  of  the  people  and 
grant  a  constitution.  But  the  tsar’s  only  answer  was 
adoption  of  general  and  thoroughly  reactionary  meas¬ 
ures  in  all  departments  of  the  governmental  system. 
Election  of  justices  of  the  peace  was  abolished,  trial  by 
jury  was  limited,  the  hitherto  liberal-minded  Zemstva 

31  Masaryk,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  I,  p.  188. 


42  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

were  now  filled  with  aristocratic  loyalists  and  put 
under  the  surveillance  of  the  officials  of  the  govern¬ 
ment;  the  municipal  officers  fared  similarly. 

The  police  absolutism  was  likewise  strengthened  and 
extended.  A  special  regulation  gave  the  police  excep¬ 
tional  powers  of  control  which  actually  suspended  ordi¬ 
nary  jurisdiction  and  introduced  a  period  of  what  was 
practically  martial  law,  resulting  in  many  arbitrary 
acts  of  the  utmost  harshness  and  cruelty. 

In  accordance  with  the  express  order  of  the  tsar,  edu¬ 
cation  was  reduced  to  such  limits  as  would  render  it 
innocuous.  Pobedonostsev,  the  guiding  spirit  of  this 
“reform,”  fathered  the  project  of  establishing  (in  1884) 
parochial  schools,  where  the  teaching  staff  consisted  of 
the  parish  priests,  who,  quite  generally,  possessed  a 
very  low  standard  of  education.  These  schools  were 
then  to  rival  the  secular  schools,  which  were  under 
the  control  of  the  local  Zemstva,  and  which  were 
regarded  as  exerting  “a  pernicious,  liberalizing  influ¬ 
ence.”  As  for  the  higher  schools  and  universities,  a 
new  statute  was  issued  for  their  control,  whereby  they 
were  deprived  of  the  small  degree  of  academic  freedom 
which  they  had  enjoyed  hitherto.  The  rectors  and 
deans,  previously  elected,  were  now  appointed  by  the 
government.  Moreover,  the  state  appointed  inspec¬ 
tors,  independent  of  the  university  authorities,  who 
possessed  very  extensive  disciplinary  powers.  Profes¬ 
sors  were  appointed  by  the  government,  and  their 
activity  was  spied  upon  and  reported;  the  same  was 
true  of  the  life  of  the  students,  whose  number  was  low¬ 
ered,  the  stipend  formerly  granted  to  poor  students 
being  taken  away,  in  order  to  prevent  the  proletariat 
elements  from  entering  the  governmental  service  and 
the  learned  professions.  The  curriculum  was  also  thor- 


43 


The  Roots  of  the  Matter 

oughly  “expurgated” :  all  scientific  and  especially  philo¬ 
sophical  and  political  studies  were  reduced  to  a  mini¬ 
mum,  if  not  altogether  excluded.  Thus,  for  instance, 
in  philosophy  only  lectures  on  Plato  and  Aristotle  were 
permitted.  As  could  be  expected,  all  professors  and 
students  of  even  moderate  progressive  tendencies  were 
promptly  dismissed.  Schools  for  the  education  of 
women  suffered  the  same  restrictions  and  suppression, 
for  Count  Pahlen  well  knew  what  a  considerable  role 
women  had  played  in  the  revolutionary  struggle. 

The  active  revolutionaries  were  hunted  down  with 
the  greatest  perseverance  and  determination,  and  most 
inhumanly  and  cruelly  treated.  Authentic  descriptions 
of  the  horrors  of  the  Siberian  prison  system  filled 
Europe  with  a  moral  indignation  such  as  only  the 
Turkish  atrocities  evoked.  Such  was  the  regime  of 
Alexander  III,  which  lasted  till  1894,  the  date  of  his 
death. 


CHAPTER  II 

BETWEEN  THE  TWO  REVOLUTIONS  (1905-1917) 

Nicholas  II  (1894-1918),  destined  to  be  the  last  of 
the  Russian  tsars,  was  educated  under  the  direction  of 
his  father,  Alexander  III,  and  imbued  with  his  views, 
although  he  was  utterly  devoid  of  his  father’s  decisive 
qualities  of  character,  being  of  a  weak  and  yielding  dis¬ 
position  ;  hence  the  actual  direction  of  policy  was  often 
dictated  by  other  minds.  During  the  first  part  of  his 
reign,  Pobedonostsev,  the  ober-procuror  of  the  Holy 
Synod,  was  the  tsar’s  evil  genius;  after  this  powerful 
man’s  retirement,  Nicholas  fell  increasingly  under  the 
influence  of  his  well-meaning  but  hysterically  consti¬ 
tuted  wife,  Alexandra,  daughter  of  the  grand  duke  of 
Hesse  Darmstadt.  The  emperor  began  by  declaring 
his  intention  to  “follow  his  father  in  everything.”  In 
reply  to  a  loyal  address,  having  been  instigated  to  it  by 
Pobedonostsev,  he  returned  a  haughty  challenge  to 
“those  who  indulged  in  senseless  dreams  with  regard 
to  the  participation  of  the  Zemstva  in  the  direction  of 
the  internal  affairs  of  the  Empire,”  1  informing  them 
that  they  would  find  that  “while  he  would  devote  his 
energy  to  the  service  of  the  people,  he  would  also  main¬ 
tain  the  principle  of  autocracy  as  firmly  as  it  had  been 
maintained  by  his  lamented  father.” 

This  tactless  challenge  angered  and  alienated  still 
further  the  parties  which  were  striving  for  constitu- 

1  Hugh  Y.  Reyburn:  The  Story  of  the  Russian  Church ,  London, 
1924,  p.  270. 


44 


Between  Two  Revolutions  (1905-1917)  45 

tional  reforms,  and  their  resentment  manifested  itself 
in  a  letter  which  was  sent  to  the  tsar  in  January,  1895. 
The  writers  of  this  letter  plainly  indicated  that  they 
were  ready  to  accept  the  challenge  so  haughtily  flung 
at  them. 

Under  the  reign  of  von  Plehve,  who  was  appointed 
minister  of  the  interior  in  1902,  the  political  and  social 
atmosphere  became  stifling.  He  persecuted  the 
Zemstva,  imposed  most  rigorous  restrictions  upon  stu¬ 
dents  and  schools,  so  that  “a  group  of  students  were  not 
allowed  to  walk  down  the  street  together,”  2  and  domi¬ 
nated  all  schools  and  universities  by  espionage;  even 
private  citizens  were  compelled  to  procure  a  written 
police  permission  to  hold  a  party  in  their  own  homes. 
Von  Plehve,  a  minister  of  the  state,  was  directly  impli¬ 
cated  in  the  pogroms  which  earned  for  Russia  such 
unenviable  notoriety,  and  by  official  regulations  aggra¬ 
vated  the  already  inhuman  treatment  of  the  Jews.  He 
directly  promoted,  in  1903,  a  pogrom  in  Kishinev, 
which  was  so  revolting  that  the  governor  of  the 
gubernia,  Prince  Urusov,  resigned  his  post  in  protest. 
Finally,  in  1904,  the  life  of  this  reactionary,  whose  pol¬ 
icy  had  aggravated  the  already  tense  situation,  was  ter¬ 
minated  by  a  bomb  thrown  by  a  revolutionary.  Russia, 
like  Turkey,  was  ruled  by  “autocracy  tempered  by 
assassination.” 

To  the  dissatisfaction  with  the  autocratic  form  of 
government  was  added  a  cause  which  most  effectually 
spread  misery  and  consequent  disaffection  among  the 
peasants,  namely,  famine.  Large  areas  of  the  country 
were  affected  by  this  catastrophe,  which  began  in  1891 
and  subsequently  came  at  intervals.  The  second  came 
in  1898-99,  and  not  only  spread  misery  but  ruined 

a  Bernard  Pares:  A  History  of  Russia,  New  York,  1926,  p.  408. 


46  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

many  a  farmer’s  family  for  the  future.  During  the 
fearful  catastrophe  the  fields  remained  untilled,  for 
even  the  seed  was  consumed  and  there  was  nothing  to 
sow;  horsed  and  cows  were  either  sold  or  killed  for 
food;  the  number  of  sick  was  very  large,  those  ill  with 
scurvy  amounting  to  one  hundred  thousand  in  the 
provinces  of  Samara,  Kazan,  and  Simbirsk  alone.”  3 
The  proverbially  patient,  phlegmatic  peasant  millions 
became  desperate,  for  they  had  nothing  to  lose  by 
revolting  against  the  conditions  under  which  they  were 
forced  to  live,  and  possibly  something  to  gain  by  any 
kind  of  change. 

The  workers  also  became  exceedingly  restless,  due  to 
the  steady  progress  of  Socialism  among  them.  The 
first  Social  Democratic  Party — known  as  The  Party  for 
the  Emancipation  of  Labor — was  founded  in  1883  by 
Gregory  V.  Plekhanov,  “the  father  of  Russian  Marx¬ 
ism,”  outside  of  Russia.  A  similar  organization  was 
founded  in  St.  Petersburg  in  1885.  In  1894  this  party 
was  suppressed,  but  continued  its  agitation  under¬ 
ground.  The  beginning  of  the  labor  movement  on  a 
large  scale  may  be  seen  in  the  large  St.  Petersburg  tex¬ 
tile  workers’  strike  in  1896,  which  was  participated  in 
by  thirty  thousand  workers.  Even  the  Jewish  workers 
organized  themselves,  in  1897,  into  the  Bund ,  which 
attained  a  very  far-reaching  importance,  because  Jews 
were  deprived  of  so  many  legal  rights  that  this  organi¬ 
zation  served  as  an  outlet  for  their  revolutionary 
inclinations. 

Under  these  circumstances  it  would  be  futile  to 
expect  any  abatement  of  the  agitation  for  political  lib¬ 
erty,  or  at  least  for  amelioration  of  the  existing  condi- 

3  Olgin:  The  Soul  of  the  Russian  Revolution.  New  York,  1917, 
p.  43. 


Between  Two  Revolutions  (1905-1917)  47 

tions,  and  it  could  be  foreseen  that  the  extreme  radical 
organizations  had  a  better  chance  of  success  than  the 
more  moderate  ones.  Therefore  the  efforts  of  the 
earlier  revolutionary  and  other  political  organizations 
continued  with  furious  energy.  The  revolutionary  tra¬ 
dition  was  inherited,  by  the  beginning  of  the  twentieth 
century,  by  the  Social  Revolutionary  Party,  which 
was  composed  of  some  five  groups,  and  which  added  to 
the  political  demands  the  dicta  of  the  Marxian  teach¬ 
ing.  But  they  not  only  aimed  at  the  establishment  of 
a  socially  juster  organization  and  distribution  of 
wealth,  but  included  within  their  program  a  demand 
for  political  as  well  as  industrial  democracy.  The  chief 
exponent  of  the  Socialistic  creed  in  Russia  was  Gregory 
V.  Plekhanov,  who  held  strictly  to  the  doctrines  of 
Marx,  according  to  which  the  capitalistic  stage  of  social 
evolution  is  necessary  for  the  development  of  con¬ 
ditions  under  which  the  majority  of  workers  are  turned 
into  wage-earning  proletarians,  and  in  consequence 
become  fully  class-conscious.  The  war  against  capital¬ 
ism  could  never  be  successfully  waged  unless  such  con¬ 
ditions  prevail;  for  that  reason,  Plekhanov  gave  his 
attention  to  the  industrial  workers  rather  than  to  the 
peasants,  as  the  previous  revolutionary  organizations 
had  done.  But  Plekhanov  did  not  regard  the  Russian 
situation  as  sufficiently  ripe  for  the  revolutionary  strug¬ 
gle  against  the  bourgeoisie,  and  adopted  a  program  of 
amelioration  of  the  existing  living  and  working  condi¬ 
tions,  to  be  realized  only  in  cooperation  with  the  more 
social-minded  political  leaders  of  the  middle  and  edu¬ 
cated  classes,  as  the  only  feasible  mode  of  procedure 
until  such  a  time  as  Russia  should  become  sufficiently 
industrialized  to  develop  a  strong,  class-conscious  pro¬ 
letariat.  In  1898,  the  scattered  groups,  including  the 


48  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

Jewish  Bund,  organized  themselves  into  the  Russian 
Social  Democratic  Workmen’s  Party.  The  German 
“Revisionist”  movement,  which  came  to  look  upon  the 
state  as  a  means  for  the  removal  of  grievances  of  the 
industrial  order  rather  than  as  one  of  the  chief  evils  to 
be  removed,  found  Russian  exponents  in  Peter  Struve, 
Sergei  Bulgakov,  and  Prokopovich. 

However,  these  tendencies,  as  was  almost  inevitable, 
produced  a  corresponding  reaction  in  favor  of  the  for¬ 
mer  orthodox  revolutionary  methods  of  dealing  with 
the  situation,  and  events  conspired  to  further  these 
more  radical  endeavors.  The  leaders  of  this  tendency, 
like  Lenin  and  Martov,  came  to  advocate,  in  such  writ¬ 
ings  as  Lenin’s  What  Is  to  Be  Done f  and  Letter  to  a 
Comrade,  a  centralized  direction  of  or  dictatorship  over 
the  rank  and  file  of  the  party,  whose  activity  would  be 
limited  to  a  prompt  execution  of  the  orders  of  the  lead¬ 
ing  oligarchy,  without  sharing  either  in  the  direction  or 
in  the  responsibility  of  the  leaders.  In  other  words,  he 
rejected  the  trend  toward  democracy  which  manifested 
itself  strongly  in  Socialism,  and  insisted  that  the  vic¬ 
tory  of  Socialism  could  not  be  won  by  such  methods, 
but  only  by  an  efficiently  centralized,  militaristically 
organized  and  directed  party  action.  At  the  Congress 
held  in  London,  in  1903,  the  Russian  Socialist  Party 
divided  over  this  issue  into  the  Bolshevik  (majority) 
and  Menshevik  (minority)  factions,  with  a  small 
majority  in  favor  of  the  former.  In  1905,  the  Bolshevik 
faction  was  able  to  capture  the  Central  Council,  from, 
which  it  promptly  excluded  all  the  adherents  of  the 
democratic-minded  minority.  The  issue  between  them 
was  just  this  insistence  upon  the  oligarchical  rule 
by  the  leaders  of  the  Bolsheviks,  and  the  democratic 
orientation  of  the  Mensheviks;  in  the  struggle  which 


Between  Two  Revolutions  ( 1905-1917 )  49 

ensued,  as  later  events  proved,  the  victory  was  to  rest 
with  the  Bolsheviks,  who  under  the  leadership  of  Lenin 
were  to  seize  the  reins  of  government  from  Kerensky  in 
October,  1917,  and  to  plant  the  red  flag  over  the  grim 
symbol  of  the  tsarist  autocracy,  the  Kremlin,  thus  sig¬ 
nifying  that  the  long  struggle  of  the  revolutionary  par¬ 
ties  with  the  ancient  autocracy  of  the  tsars  was  victori¬ 
ously  ended. 

The  story  of  the  First  Revolution — that  of  1905 — is 
sufficiently  well  known  not  to  require  any  extended 
repetition  here.  The  colossal  defeats  sustained  by  the 
Russian  army  during  the  Russo-Japanese  War  revealed 
— in  spite  of  all  the  attempts  to  keep  it  secret — such  a 
depth  of  governmental  mismanagement  and  corruption 
that  the  loud  cry  for  reforms  became  quite  general,  and 
terrified  even  the  previously  impervious  statesmen. 
The  tsar  felt  forced  to  make  concessions  to  the  popular 
demands  for  a  constitutional  form  of  government,  and 
thus  compelled  by  the  sense  of  the  stern  necessity  of 
such  a  quieting  action,  rather  than  from  conviction,  he 
finally  granted  the  poor  makeshift  of  a  Constitution 
under  which  the  first  Imperial  Duma  was  elected. 

The  liberalization  of  the  religious  policy,  which  this 
involved,  was  first  promised  in  1904.  Late  in  that  year, 
the  Zemstva  held  secret  conferences  in  St.  Petersburg 
and  Moscow,  and  under  the  leadership  of  Prince  Sergei 
Trubetskoy  of  the  Moscow  University  issued  a  Petition 
of  Rights,  which  demanded,  among  other  things,  also 
freedom  of  conscience.  The  government  tried  to  stem 
the  tide  by  issuing  an  ukaz,  on  December  12,  1904,  in 
which  it  pledged  itself  to  a  certain  tentative  program 
of  amelioration  of  the  hitherto  prevailing  policy  of 
religious  intolerance. 

The  piteously  blundering  policy  of  the  government 


50  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

which  resulted  in  the  horrible  massacre  of  the  “Bloody 
Sunday/'  when  on  January  22  the  working  masses 
marched  peacefully,  carrying  icons  and  singing  religious 
and  patriotic  songs,  under  the  leadership  of  Priest 
George  Gapon,  to  petition  the  tsar  for  a  redress  of  their 
wrongs,  embroiled  the  seething  discontent  still  more. 
Finally,  on  April  17,  1905,  the  tsar  gave  the  Russian 
religious  bodies  his  “Easter  gift”  in  the  form  of  an 
ukaz,  Regarding  the  Increase  of  Toleration ,  which 
established  a  certain  degree  of  freedom  of  conscience 
not  hitherto  enjoyed,  although  this  was  neither  full  nor 
did  it  include  all  religious  communions. 

In  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  ukaz  had  expressly  stated 
that  the  Orthodox  church  should  retain  its  privileged 
position  as  “the  primary  and  governing  in  the  Russian 
Empire,”  the  galling  disabilities  which  had  afflicted  the 
Old-Ritualists,  the  Roman  Catholics,  and  the  various 
communions  of  the  sectarians  were  now  swept  away. 
The  chapels  of  the  Old-Ritualists  were  opened;  the 
secret,  disguised  Roman  Catholic  monasteries,  which 
existed  in  the  Kingdom  of  Poland,  were  legitimatized ; 
and  transfer  of  membership  from  one  to  another  reli¬ 
gious  communion  was  permitted. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  new  law  did  not  recognize 
non-confessionalism  as  legal,  so  that  every  citizen  was 
supposed  to  belong  to  some  one  of  the  existing  religious 
bodies;  the  marriage  rite  remained  a  monopoly  of  the 
church.  The  six  millions  of  Jews  living  within  the  con¬ 
fines  of  Russia  under  notoriously  harsh  and  oppressive 
conditions  received  no  relief. 

The  Easter  ukaz  was  further  validated  by  the  grant¬ 
ing  of  the  Manifesto  of  October  30,  1905,  which  granted 
Russia  a  limited  monarchical  form  of  government. 

The  liberalizing  tendency  found  exponents  even 


Between  Two  Revolutions  ( 1905-1917 )  51 

within  the  church  itself,  and  among  these  even  men  of 
high  station,  such  as  the  metropolitan  of  St.  Petersburg, 
Antony.  A  more  radical  movement  was  organized  in 
St.  Petersburg  by  “the  thirty-two  priests,”  who  under 
the  leadership  of  Priest  Peter  Kremlevsky  became  pio¬ 
neers  of  the  later  church-revolutionary  forces.4  A 
member  of  the  group,  Eugene  Kh.  Belkov,  edited  an 
organ  of  the  party,  which,  however,  was  suspended  sev¬ 
eral  times,  until  finally  its  editor  was  subjected  to  a 
trial. 

The  objectives  aimed  at  by  these  liberal  movements 
were,  in  short,  an  attempt  to  overthrow  the  bureau¬ 
cratic  caesaropapism  of  the  Holy  Governing  Synod  and 
to  substitute  for  it  some  more  democratic  form  of  syn¬ 
odical,  i.e.  truly  representative  ecclesiastical  govern¬ 
ment.  The  chief  mover  in  the  matter  was  Antony, 
metropolitan  of  St.  Petersburg,  who  as  early  as  Decem¬ 
ber,  1904,  appointed  a  committee  of  liberal  professors 
of  the  Metropolitan  Theological  Academy  to  work  out 
suggestions  regarding  the  needed  reforms  in  the  gov¬ 
ernment  of  the  Orthodox  church.  Their  memoran¬ 
dum  stressed  the  necessity  of  freeing  the  church  from 
the  existing  dependence  upon  the  state,  and  making  it 
autonomous  within  its  own  sphere.  In  order  to  work 
out  the  policy,  it  was  demanded  that  a  Russian  local 
Sobor  be  convened. 

As  long  as  Pobedonostsev  held  the  reins  of  the  Holy 
Synod  in  his  firm  grasp,  endeavors  of  this  kind  were 
frustrated  by  his  opposition.  But  after  the  October 
Manijesto,  the  erstwhile  omnipotent  minister,  in  whom 
the  incarnated  autocratic  principles  could  not  tolerate 
the  new  regime,  retired  from  office,  and  Prince  A.  D. 

4  Cf.  Vvedensky:  The  Church  and  the  Government,  Moscow, 
1923,  p.  24.  (In  Russian.) 


52  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

Obolensky  was  made  his  successor.  The  situation  was 
now  propitious  for  the  representatives  of  the  liberal 
tendency,  and  their  demand  for  the  calling  of  a  Sobor 
was  actually  granted.  The  tsar  summoned  the  synodi¬ 
cal  metropolitans  and  expressed  his  wish  to  have  the 
Sobor  called  soon,  exhorting  them  to  hurry  with  the 
necessary  preparatory  labors.  Their  preparatory  ses¬ 
sion  was  begun  in  January,  1906,  and  lasted  till  the 
end  of  the  year. 

However,  the  general  situation  soon  changed.  Four 
months  had  not  passed  since  the  granting  of  the  Octo¬ 
ber  Manifesto  when  the  tsar  with  his  reactionary 
bureaucracy  began  to  plot  how  the  “liberties”  granted 
so  recently  could  be  revoked,  or  at  least  limited.  The 
church  proved  itself  an  able  ally  in  this  work  of  restora¬ 
tion  of  the  old  autocratic  rule.  In  1906,  The  League 
of  the  Russian  People,  popularly  known  as  The  Black 
Hundred,  was  organized;  this  notoriously  reactionary 
body  soon  became  inextricably  bound  with  the  church, 
and  counted  among  its  members  a  large  proportion  of 
the  hierarchs  as  well  as  of  the  clergy  and  the  laity.  It 
became  notoriously  prominent  in  the  brutally  inhuman 
anti-Semitic  riots,  the  pogroms,  and  in  political  mur¬ 
ders;  the  government,  secretly  in  collusion  with  the 
organization,  not  only  did  not  punish  its  lawless  activ¬ 
ity,  but  on  the  contrary  often  actively  supported  the 
perpetrators  in  their  nefarious  projects. 

The  preparatory  sessions  of  the  Sobor  committee 
were  held  under  such  conditions.  No  wonder  that  the 
liberal  forces,  in  the  minority  from  the  beginning,  soon 
lost  their  lead,  which  passed  to  the  leaders  of  the  con¬ 
servative  and  monarchical  hierarchs,  such  as  Metropol¬ 
itan  Vladimir  of  Moscow,  and  the  able  young  bishop 
of  Volhynia,  Antony  Khrapovitsky,  who  later  became 


Between  Two  Revolutions  (1905-1917)  53 

the  leader  of  the  emigre  clergy.  These  conservatives 
also  wanted  freedom  of  the  church,”  but  in  the  sense 
of  concentrating  the  power  in  the  hands  of  the  hier¬ 
archy,  headed  by  a  patriarch,  who  would,  as  formerly, 
represent  the  inner  autonomy  of  the  church  as  against 
the  encroachments  and  overwhelming  preponderance 
of  the  power  of  the  state.  In  the  struggle  between  the 
democratically  representative  policy  of  the  liberal  fac¬ 
tion  and  the  conservative  demands  for  an  oligarchical 
rule  of  the  hierarchy,  the  latter  quickly  gained  a  pre¬ 
ponderating  majority. 

The  program  worked  out  by  this  committee  was  cor¬ 
respondingly  conservative:  the  emperor  was  accorded 
the  right  of  sanction  of  all  the  more  important  deci¬ 
sions  of  the  hierarchy,  and  among  other  matters  he  was 
to  call  the  Sobor,  if  he  thought  necessary,  and  to 
approve  the  election  of  a  patriarch.  Hence,  funda¬ 
mentally  the  new  scheme  differed  but  little  from  the 
old  autocracy  of  the  Holy  Synod,  through  which  the 
will  of  the  tsar  was  decisive  in  all  matters  upon  which 
he  wished  to  speak. 

In  the  meantime,  the  first  Duma  was  dissolved  with¬ 
out  any  preliminary  notice  to  its  president,  and  the 
tsarist  reaction  against  the  forced  concessions  of  the 
previous  year  further  manifested  itself  in  dissolving 
the  pre-Sobor  session  even  before  it  had  fully  com¬ 
pleted  its  labors.  As  for  the  recommendations  of  the 
session  that  a  national  Sobor  be  called,  these,  as  poten¬ 
tially  disturbing  to  the  old  order,  were  quietly  but  reso¬ 
lutely  ignored.  Thus  ended  the  first  attempt  to  reform 
the  Russian  church;  nothing  was  done  in  the  matter 
until  after  the  fall  of  the  tsar  in  the  spring  of  1917. 

The  ruling  hierarchy  also  took  a  pronouncedly  hos¬ 
tile  attitude  toward  the  parties  of  the  Left  in  the 


54  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

Duma.  The  first  Duma  counted  fourteen  priests  among 
its  delegates,  and  among  these  priests  Gregory  S. 
Petrov,  a  fiery  orator  and  an  able  publicist,  was  an  out¬ 
standing  liberal  leader.  The  second  Duma,  elected 
after  the  most  determined  efforts  of  the  government 
and  the  ultra-conservative  parties  to  gain  a  comfort¬ 
able  majority  for  themselves,  for  which  purpose  the 
electoral  law  was  most  arbitrarily  interpreted,  was, 
naturally  enough,  more  conservative.  But,  in  spite 
of  this,  the  priestly  delegates  were  found  mostly  in  the 
Center,  and  even  on  the  Left,  rather  than  predomi¬ 
nantly  on  the  Right,  as  was  expected.  Five  of  them 
even  joined  the  Labor  Party,  which  had  the  largest 
representation  (201),  and  the  Peasant  Group.  The 
Synod  now  openly  adopted  forcible  measures  to  compel 
these  deputies  of  the  people,  whose  right  to  a  free 
expression  of  their  political  views  was  guaranteed  by 
the  constitution,  to  change  their  political  creed.  The 
Holy  Synod,  after  a  few  ineffectual  attempts  to  win 
them  freely,  issued  a  categorical  demand  stipulating 
that  they  either  join  one  of  the  parties  of  the  Right 
(from  the  Party  of  the  30th  of  October  to  the  Right), 
or  renounce  the  priesthood.  After  the  second  Duma  was 
dissolved,  the  priests-delegates  of  the  Left  who  did  not 
change  their  political  credo  were  promptly  arraigned 
before  the  ecclesiastical  tribunal  and  deprived  of  their 
orders.  Others  who  were  not  of  the  Left,  but  who  did 
not  show  themselves  sufficiently  conservative  were  dis¬ 
criminated  against  and  made  to  suffer  from  the  dis¬ 
pleasure  of  their  superiors.  As  an  example  of  this  anti¬ 
liberal  political  animus  of  the  Holy  Synod  may  be 
cited  the  case  of  Bishop  Antonin,  at  that  time  vicar 
of  the  Petersburg  metropolitanate,  and  later  one  of 
the  chief  leaders  of  the  reformist  movement,  who  was 


Between  Two  Revolutions  (1905-1917)  55 

retired  to  a  monastery  because  after  the  Manifesto  of 
October  80  he  refused,  when  reading  the  liturgy,  to 
employ  the  title  “autocrat”  in  connection,  with  the 
tsar’s  name. 

After  the  dissolving  of  the  second  Duma,  the  elec¬ 
toral  law  was  changed  by  the  tsar,  even  though  this 
change  was  contrary  to  the  express  stipulation  of  the 
Constitution ;  the  new  electoral  law,  which  most 
drastically  restricted  the  franchise  in  favor  of  the  coun¬ 
try  gentry  and  other  “reliable”  elements,  was  worked 
out  with  the  view  of  returning  to  the  Duma  an 
“obedient,”  i.e.  monarchist,  delegation.  The  church 
exerted  itself  to  the  utmost  to  recommend  “suitable” 
candidates.  The  result  of  the  terrorism  instituted  by 
the  government  was  considerably  gratifying  to  it:  the 
Right  had  a  clear  majority,  and  among  the  delegates 
were  some  fifty  priests  and  two  bishops.  The  Left 
saw  no  priestly  robes  on  its  benches,  which,  moreover, 
presented  a  somewhat  deserted  aspect.  During  the 
period  of  the  third  Duma,  the  Holy  Synod  openly 
joined  hands  with  the  illiberal  policy  of  the  govern¬ 
ment  of  Stolypin  in  limiting  all  liberties  granted  by  . 
the  Constitution.  The  hierarchy  adopted  repressive 
measures  of  its  own:  in  the  first  place,  it  turned  its 
attention  to  the  regulation  of  the  training  schools  for 
the  priesthood,  both  the  seminaries  and  academies. 
(It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  seminary,  roughly 
speaking,  corresponds  to  our  high  school,  and  the 
academy  to  our  theological  seminary.)  Both  the  sem¬ 
inaries  and  academies,  during  the  revolutionary  years 
of  1905-1906,  showed  themselves  largely  on  the  side 
of  the  liberal  aspirations.  Both  professors  and  stu¬ 
dents  made  public  commitments  of  their  political 
liberalism.  This  the  Holy  Synod  proposed  to  change. 


56  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

In  1908,  a  committee  for  the  revision  of  all  theologi¬ 
cal  training  schools  was  appointed,  and  its  personnel 
plainly  indicated  the  direction  of  the  contemplated 
revision :  among  its  members  were  the  chief  leaders  of 
the  reactionary  policy  of  the  church— Bishop  Antony 
of  Volhynia,  Dmitry  of  Kherson,  and  Metropolitan 
Arseny  of  Novgorod.  Liberal  professors  were  dis¬ 
missed  and  new  rules  were  imposed  which  were  calcu¬ 
lated  to  banish  all  liberalism  from  the  schools. 

Furthermore,  the  hierarchy,  which  chafed  at  the 
sight  of  the  very  restricted  “liberties”  granted  to  the 
non-Orthodox,  exerted  itself  most  powerfully  to 
restrict,  as  much  as  possible,  the  enjoyment  of  this  free¬ 
dom.  In  December,  1907,  the  church  leaders  presented 
the  Duma  with  their  project  of  reconstructing  the  laws 
relative  to  the  matter,  but  the  Duma  did  not  show  itself 
ready  to  cooperate.  When,  in  the  fall  of  1910, 
the  Holy  Synod,  disregarding  the  legitimate  channels, 
instituted  new  regulations  for  the  theological  acad¬ 
emies,  even  the  very  conservative  personnel  of  the 
third  Duma  was  moved  to  oppose  sharply  the  auto¬ 
cratic  methods  pursued  by  the  hierarchy,  and  their 
protest  took  the  tangible  form  of  refusing  to  vote 
credits  for  the  educational  institutions  under  the 
control  of  the  Synod.6  The  more  liberal  parties  of  the 
Duma  went  even  further  and  broached  the  project 
of  demanding  the  surrender  of  the  control  of  such 
ecclesiastically  controlled  schools  to  the  ministry  of 
education. 

But  the  most  pronouncedly  reactionary  period  of  the 
pre-war  era  was  that  of  the  ober-procurorship  of  V.  K. 

8  B.  V.  Titlinov:  The  Church  during  the  Revolution,  Petrograd, 
1924,  p.  28.  (In  Russian.) 


Between  Two  Revolutions  (1905-1917)  57 

Sabler,  who  took  office  in  May,  1911.  A  man  of 
intensely  reactionary  and  intolerant  tendencies,  he 
gathered  about  him  hierarchs  of  his  own  stamp,  so  that 
during  his  regime  the  liberal  tendencies  had  no  oppor¬ 
tunity  even  to  express  themselves.  Regarding  the 
schools,  even  the  very  illiberal  regulations  of  1910  were 
not  sufficiently  stringent,  and  were  superseded  by  the 
new  Changes  in  the  Constitution  of  Theological 
Academies,  which  placed  the  control  of  these  institu¬ 
tions  exclusively  in  the  hands  of  their  monastic 
superiors,  who  were  charged  with  the  duty  of  plucking 
out  of  them  all  liberal  tendencies.  Professors  in  these 
schools  were  again  instructed  not  to  belong  to  any 
political  parties  but  those  approved  by  the  ecclesias¬ 
tical  authorities,  or,  in  plain  language,  to  the  extreme 
monarchical  groups.  Furthermore,  the  parishes  were 
now  robbed  of  even  the  slight  autonomic  rights  which 
they  had  preserved  hitherto,  and  the  fullness  of  power 
was  given  to  the  bishops.  The  clergy,  under  the  pre¬ 
tense  of  economic  security,  were  to  receive  their  salaries 
exclusively  from  the  state,  so  that  they  would  no 
longer  be  dependent  upon  their  parishes.  The  real 
intent  of  this  last  measure  was  obvious:  to  bind  the 
clergy  still  more  closely  to  the  state  by  making  them 
economically  entirely  dependent  upon  it,  or,  in  other 
words,  to  fashion  the  clergy  into  an  obedient  and  pli¬ 
able  spiritual  tool.  By  making  the  priest  a  state 
official  of  the  twentieth  category,  the  process  of  the 
age-long  caesaropapist  policy  was  completed.  Regard¬ 
ing  the  national  Sobor,  Sabler  pledged  himself  to  its 
calling,  and  early  in  1912  actually  appointed  a  new 
pre-Sobor  commission  which  was  to  prepare  the  proj¬ 
ects  with  which  the  Sobor  was  to  deal.  But  Sabler 


58  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

and  his  associates  pursued  a  far  different  policy  from 
that  of  the  protagonists  of  the  Sobor  in  1906 ;  for  him, 
the  Sobor  was  to  free  the  hierarchy  of  the  few  remain¬ 
ing  impediments  in  the  way  of  a  completely  unimpeded 
oligarchical  sway,  and  to  set  at  the  head  of  this 
centralized  oligarchical  government  a  patriarch,  who 
would  be  the  exponent  and  protagonist  of  such  a 
policy. 

The  third  Duma,  as  already  indicated,  slowly  real¬ 
ized  that  with  such  a  leadership  in  the  church  there 
could  be  no  cooperation.  Gradually  it  was  drawn 
toward  a  policy  of  opposition  to  the  various  projects 
of  the  Holy  Synod,  until  finally  in  1912  it  broke  out 
into  a  determined  and  even  violent  denunciation  of  the 
ecclesiastical  leadership.  The  action  was  known  as 
“the  attack  on  the  church.”  The  clerical  members  of 
the  Duma  felt  compelled  to  publish  a  declaration  in 
which  they  pronounced  all  the  parties  in  the  Duma, 
with  the  exception  of  the  Right,  the  “enemies  of  the 
church.”6  However,  the  days  of  the  third  Duma  were 
numbered,  and  under  the  shadow  of  the  disagreement 
between  the  church  and  the  third  Duma  the  elections 
for  the  fourth  Duma  were  carried  forward. 

The  church  took  a  zealous,  indeed  dominating, 
interest  in  these  elections.  A  vast  network  of  local 
centers  under  the  control  of  the  church — the  local 
parishes — was  drawn  in  an  effort  to  manage  the  right 
kind  of  catch.  The  Synod,  together  with  the  minister 
of  the  interior,  organized  a  special  department  for  the 
purpose  of  directing  the  maneuvers,  and  the  result 
of  their  feverish  activity  was  truly  astounding:  the 
preliminary  elections  showed  that  the  number  of  pos¬ 
sible  clerical  delegates  for  the  Duma  was  upward  to 

6Titlinov:  op.  cit.,  p.  32. 


Between  Two  Revolutions  ( 1905-1917 )  59 

one  hundred  and  fifty,7  so  that  even  the  government, 
which,  as  was  well  known,  wished  for  an  “obedient” 
Duma  above  all  other  things,  was  dismayed  at  the  pros¬ 
pect  of  facing  the  rest  of  Europe  with  this  “priests’ 
Duma,”  as  it  was  dubbed  By  a  facetious  newspaper 
reporter.  Therefore  confidential  instructions  were  dis¬ 
patched  through  the  Holy  Synod  to  the  clerical  dele¬ 
gates,  the  purpose  of  which  was  either  to  persuade  or 
intimidate  them  into  voting  for  some  equally  reliable 
lay  candidate.  In  consequence,  the  fourth  Duma 
mustered  about  the  same  number  of  clerical  delegates 
as  the  third  Duma  had  done.  Nevertheless,  the  Right 
parties  failed  to  obtain  an  absolute  majority  in  the 
Duma,  and  consequently  the  struggle  between  this 
political  organ  and  Sabler’s  policies  regarding  the 
church  was  of  necessity  continued.  His  new  regula¬ 
tion  for  the  clerico-educational  institutions  was 
rejected  by  the  Duma;  the  same  treatment  awaited 
Sabler’s  project  regarding  the  organization  of  the 
parishes,  as  well  as  his  other  projects.  It  was  like¬ 
wise  generally  understood  that  the  long-promised  Sobor 
was  to  be  held  on  the  occasion  of  the  celebration  of 
the  three-hundredth  anniversary  of  the  reign  of  the 
Romanov  house,  and  that  the  patriarchate  would  then 
be  reestablished.  But  the  year  of  the  celebration 
passed  and  nothing  of  the  expected  kind  happened. 

Probably  the  most  potent  factor  in  the  extreme 
unpopularity  of  Sabler’s  administration,  as  well  as  in 
the  distaste  for  religion  on  the  part  of  the  educated 
classes,  is  to  be  sought  in  the  weird  influence  exercised 
over  the  imperial  court,  and  especially  over  the  tsarina, 
by  the  illiterate  and  immoral  muzhik,  Gregory  E. 

7  Titlinov:  Orthodoxy  in  the  Service  of  Autocracy ,  Leningrad,  1924, 
p.  201.  (In  Russian.) 


60  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

Rasputin.  This  designing,  shrewd  charlatan  gained 
access  to  the  court  by  reason  of  his  fame  as  a  “saint, ” 
which  he  had  gained  in  the  circle  of  a  truly  saintly 
monastic  ascetic,  Theophan,  through  whom  the  “elder” 
Rasputin  also  gained  admission  to  the  court  circles. 
His  personal  worthlessness  of  character  was  exposed 
in  a  sensational  book,  entitled  The  Holy  Devil,  written 
by  a  monk,  Iliodor,  who  knew  him  well  from  Theo- 
phan’s  circle.  Both  this  monk  and  Bishop  Her- 
mogen,  who  also  opposed  Rasputin,  were  clapped  into 
monastic  prisons.  This  peasant  Tartuffe  soon  pos¬ 
sessed  himself  of  a  surprising  ascendancy  over  the 
tsarina,  and  through  her  became  the  mightiest  “power 
behind  the  throne.”  He  began  to  play  the  role  of  a 
dictator,  and  most  of  the  important  ecclesiastical 
appointments  were  influenced,  or  directly  effected,  by 
him;  some  of  them,  indeed,  were  solely  his  own  work. 
Beginning  with  Sabler,  a  whole  line  of  ober-procurors 
was  appointed  at  his  bidding;  the  chief  metropolitan¬ 
ates  were  filled  by  obscure  hierarchs — as  for  instance, 
the  cathedra  of  Moscow  by  the  unknown  Siberian 
bishop,  Macarius — merely  because  they  were  Ras¬ 
putin’s  proteges,  and  his  word  was  all-powerful  with 
the  ruling  circles.  One  of  his  creatures,  Archbishop 
Varvara,  even  took  it  upon  himself  to  canonize  a  new 
saint,  and  when  he  was  disciplined  by  Ober-procuror 
Samarin  for  this  arbitrary  usurpation  of  ecclesiastical 
prerogatives,  the  emperor  was  persuaded  to  decide  in 
favor  of  the  archbishop,  and  even  went  to  the  length 
of  dismissing  Samarin. 

In  the  meantime,  the  World  War  had  broken  out, 
and  within  a  year  the  Russian  forces  began  to  suffer 
defeats,  partly  because  the  minister  of  war,  Sukho- 
mlinov,  was  criminally  apathetic  in  the  matter  of  car- 


Between  Two  Revolutions  (1905-1917)  61 

ing  for  the  equipment  of  the  army.  Public  opinion  was 
again  aroused,  as  it  had  been  in  1905,  by  the  scandalous 
inefficiency,  unpreparedness,  and  general  corruption  of 
the  military  bureaucracy,  and  loudly  demanded 
reforms.  Rasputin’s  influence  became  paramount  even 
in  the  policies  of  the  state:  many  a  minister,  as  for 
instance,  Protopopov,  the  minister  of  the  interior  dur¬ 
ing  the  most  critical  period  of  the  War,  was  appointed 
to  his  post  because  of  the  favor  bestowed  upon  him 
by  this  evil  genius  of  the  Russian  court.  The  domi¬ 
nance  of  this  ignorant  and  immoral  muzhik  in  the 
supreme  authority  became  almost  absolute  when  Tsar 
Nicholas  took  the  ill-advised  step  of  retiring  the  pop¬ 
ular  Grand  Duke  Nicholas  from  the  post  of  com¬ 
mander-in-chief,  and  himself  assumed  the  supreme 
command  of  the  army.  Thereupon  the  emperor 
removed  to  the  army  headquarters,  while  the  tsarina 
became  the  real  ruler  of  the  country.  Of  a  psycho¬ 
pathic  religiosity,  the  empress  was  completely  under 
the  sway  of  Rasputin,  so  that  the  chief  qualification  of 
all  who  courted  her  favor  was  a  word  from  the  all- 
powerful  religious  humbug.  Stunner,  the  prime 
minister,  was  a  mere  puppet  in  Rasputin’s  hands.  The 
latter  held  parties  at  which  he  received  all  kinds  of 
supplications,  which  he  then  sent,  if  he  approved  of 
them,  to  the  minister  concerned  with  a  scribbled  order 
for  their  execution.  He  raised  a  colossal  governmental 
loan,  interfered  with  food  supply  and  transport,  issued 
military  orders,  and  even  forced  the  emperor  to  send 
a  certain  telegram  to  the  Serbian  king.8 

Things  had  reached  the  pass  when  almost  all  the 
leading  personalities  in  public  life,  with  the  exception 
of  the  very  narrow  circle  of  \e  tsarina’s  immediate 

•  B.  Pares:  op.  cit.,  p.  464. 


62  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

supporters,  were  united  in  a  rigorous  condemnation  of 
the  ruinous  and  sinister  influence  wielded  by  Rasputin. 
Finally,  one  of  the  plots  to  assassinate  him  succeeded, 
when  he  was  lured  into  the  house  of  Prince  Yusupov, 
husband  of  the  emperor’s  niece,  and  there  murdered 
by  the  host,  with  the  assistance  of  V.  M.  Purishkevich, 
leader  of  the  conservatives  in  the  Duma;  the  deed  was 
perpetrated  in  the  presence  of  the  grand  duke  Dmitry 
Pavlovich.  The  emperor  left  the  front  to  attend  Ras¬ 
putin’s  funeral,  and  then  for  a  number  of  weeks  shut 
himself  up  in  his  own  apartments,  completely  apa¬ 
thetic  to  the  events  which  occurred  in  the  meantime. 

The  church,  during  this  period,  was  headed  by  men 
who  contributed  toward  the  discrediting  of  this  insti¬ 
tution,  so  that  the  progressive  elements  were  more 
and  more  alienated  from  it.  Sabler,  who  was  Ras¬ 
putin’s  creature,  was  among  those  who  were  sacri¬ 
ficed,  in  1915,  to  appease  the  public  wrath;  he  was  suc¬ 
ceeded  by  A.  D.  Samarin,  who,  however,  was  removed 
some  three  months  later  for  having  defied  Rasputin. 
The  office  of  ober-procuror  was  then  filled  by  Volzhin, 
and  finally  by  N.  P.  Raev,  the  last  of  the  tsarist  ober- 
procurors.  The  quality  of  the  men  at  the  head  of  the 
church  may  be  gauged  by  the  personality  of  the 
associate  ober-procuror,  Prince  N.  D.  Zhevakhov,  whose 
naive  and  primitive  credulity,  passing  almost  all 
bounds  of  credence,  has  already  been  described.  To 
him  the  tsar’s  prerogatives  had  a  divine  basis,  for  he 
was  “the  anointed  of  the  Lord,”  and  any  opposition 
to  his  will  was  sinful.  Such  were  the  personalities 
in  whose  hands  the  supreme  direction  of  the  Russian 
church  was  placed  during  those  fearful  years  of  testing 
between  1914  and  1917!  Is  it  any  wonder  that  an 
organization  so  reactionary,  so  thoroughly  subservient 


Between  Two  Revolutions  (1905-1917)  63 

to  the  tsarist  absolutism,  should  come  to  be  regarded 
in  the  same  light  with  the  governmental  autocracy,  and 
that  all  who  desired  the  rightful  and  necessary  modifi¬ 
cations  in  the  system  of  rule  came  to  think  of  the 
church  as  the  second  chief  obstacle  in  the  path  of 
progress? 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  MARCH  REVOLUTION  (1917) 

The  disastrous  defeats  of  the  Russian  armies  at  the 
Front  were  matched  by  an  equally  desperate  internal 
situation.  The  reactionary  forces  were  increasingly 
strengthened  by  new  accessions  of  power.  When  in 
1916  the  reactionary  Protopopov  was  appointed 
minister  of  the  interior,  his  method  of  dealing  with 
the  extreme  discontent  of  the  nation,  aroused  by  the 
disorganization  and  culpable  inefficiency  as  well  as 
corruption  in  the  government,  was  that  of  equipping 
his  police  force  with  machine  guns  and  of  quartering 
Cossacks  upon  the  cities,  so  that  the  slightest  outward 
manifestation  of  discontent  was  drowned  in  blood. 

The  Duma,  which  met  in  November,  1916,  reached  in 
its  protests  the  point  of  almost  open  denunciation  of 
the  government,  but  without  much  effect  in  the 
proper  quarters.  The  very  speeches  of  the  delegates 
were  so  mutilated  by  censorship  that  often  nothing 
but  incoherent  and  unintelligible  bits  remained. 
Premier  Sturmer,  whose  Germanophile  policies  pro¬ 
voked  such  a  storm  of  protests  throughout  the  coun¬ 
try,  was  just  then  removed  from  office;  but  this  was 
in  no  way  a  concession  to  the  liberal  demands,  for  he 
was  succeeded  by  the  state  secretary  Trepov,  under 
whose  administration  conditions  grew  even  worse  than 
before.  The  stormy  scenes  in  the  Duma  increased  in 
number  and  violence,  and  the  popular  discontent 

64 


65 


The  March  Revolution  (1917) 

caused  by  shortage  of  food  throughout  Russia  mani¬ 
fested  itself  in  bloody  uprisings.  The  demands  of  the 
Duma  for  a  ministry  responsible  to  itself  became  so 
loud  and  persistent  that  finally,  on  December  30,  1916, 
the  Duma  was  prorogued.  The  agitation  was  so  vio¬ 
lent  that  the  ukaz  of  prorogation  was  not  even  read  to 
the  end.  By  various  maneuvers,  the  reassembling  of 
the  Duma  was  postponed,  and  when  it  was  finally 
assembled  in  February,  the  masses  were  already  in 
revolt  and  were  joined  by  an  increasing  number  of 
soldiers.  The  general  situation  in  Russia  now  became 
so  boldly  anti-governmental  that  even  the  Duma 
refused  to  obey  an  order  bidding  it  to  postpone  its 
meeting,  and  organized  its  own  provisional  executive 
committee,  headed  by  its  president,  Rodzyanko.  But 
the  Social  Democrats  refused  to  cooperate,  and  organ¬ 
ized,  in  the  evening  of  that  same  day,  the  first  Soviet, 
chosen  from  delegates  hastily  elected  from  the  indus¬ 
trial  plants  and  the  military  barracks.  Thus  Russia  had 
to  figure  with  two  potential  supreme  organs  of 
authority,  and  therein  lay  the  tragedy  of  the  situa¬ 
tion  as  it  developed  later.  The  emperor  continued 
apathetic  to  all  appeals  and  entreaties,  until  it  was  too 
late.  When  he  finally  decided  to  return  to  the  capital, 
he  found  the  way  blocked,  and  turned  aside  to  Pskov, 
to  the  headquarters  of  General  Ruzsky;  there  he 
learned  that  not  only  the  Duma  and  the  Soviet,  but 
practically  all  the  generals  of  the  army  as  well,  de¬ 
manded  his  abdication.  He  finally  consented  to  meet 
the  representatives  of  the  Duma’s  Provisional  Govern¬ 
ment,  and  abdicated  in  favor  of  his  brother,  Grand 
Duke  Michael.  But  when  the  Soviet  refused  to  ac¬ 
cept  another  Romanov,  Michael  prudently  refused  the 
throne  till  he  should  be  called  to  it  by  a  Constituent 


66  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

Assembly.  Neither  he  nor  anyone  else  was  ever  called 
to  the  throne;  Michael's  decision  proved  to  be  the  fall 
of  the  Romanov  dynasty,  which  had  ruled  Russia  for 
the  past  three  hundred  years.  This  momentous  event 
was  not  the  work  of  the  Duma,  or  of  the  Bolsheviki, 
whose  leaders,  like  Lenin  and  Trotsky,  were  not  even 
in  Russia  at  the  time,  and  whose  faction  in  the  Soviet 
was  still  too  weak  to  ascribe  to  it  any  dominant  part. 
The  dynasty  fell  of  its  own  inherent  weakness,  because 
the  system  which  it  created  and  fostered  alienated  the 
nation  and  in  the  fearful  hour  of  testing  could  not  with¬ 
stand  the  popular  condemnation.  The  iniquitous  tsarist 
regime  had  fallen  because  “its  sins  had  found  it  out." 

After  the  March  revolution  had  found  itself  in  pos¬ 
session  of  the  field,  it  could  be  logically  expected  that 
the  church  would  come  in  for  its  share  as  having  been 
the  chief  prop  of  the  former  theocratic  absolutism. 
But  the  revolution  proved  surprisingly  tolerant  toward 
the  tsarist  church ;  to  be  sure,  such  leaders  as  the  ober- 
procuror,  Raev,  with  his  associate,  Prince  Zhevakhov, 
as  well  as  the  reactionary  metropolitan  of  Petrograd, 
Piterim,  were  deprived  of  their  posts.  The  last-named 
was  tried  by  his  own  colleagues  in  the  Holy  Synod 
and  sent  into  Caucasia;  this  undoubtedly  was  meant 
as  a  peace  offering  to  the  new  regime  on  the  part  of  the 
Synod.  But  it  was  unthinkable  that  the  old  members 
of  the  highest  ecclesiastical  office,  who  had  been 
appointed  with  the  protection  of  influences  so  diamet¬ 
rically  opposed  to  the  revolutionary  regime  now  pre¬ 
vailing,  would  change  overnight  their  rooted  conviction 
and  work  in  the  spirit  of  the  new  order;  therefore  it 
was  impossible  that  they  should  permanently  retain 
their  posts  under  the  new  regime.  After  a  short  attempt 
to  work  with  the  old  body  under  the  new  revolu- 


67 


The  March  Revolution  (1917) 

tionary  ober-procuror,  V.  N.  L’vov,  who  found  it 
intractable,  it  was  dissolved,  and  in  April  the  new 
members  were  appointed.  The  personnel  of  the  Synod 
was  now  composed  of  men  more  or  less  in  sympathy 
with  the  needs  of  the  day. 

Thus  no  fundamental  change  in  the  structure  of 
the  government  of  the  church  was  even  attempted; 
the  Provisional  Government,  true  to  its  guiding 
principle,  deliberately  postponed  the  final  solution  of 
these  weighty  matters  of  making  radical  changes  in  the 
existing  system  till  the  meeting  of  the  properly  elected 
constituent  bodies:  in  the  church,  the  projected  Sobor, 
and  in  the  state,  the  Constituent  Assembly.  Even 
the  office  of  ober-procuror  was  retained  essentially 
unchanged  till  the  end  of  June,  when  the  Ministry  of 
Confessions  was  substituted  for  it.  The  only  legal 
difference  between  the  tsarist  ober-procurorship  and 
the  revolutionary  one  was  that  the  incumbent  was  now 
appointed  by  the  Provisional  Government,  while 
formerly  this  had  been  the  prerogative  of  the  tsar;  but 
otherwise  the  duties  and  responsibilities  of  the  office 
remained  essentially  unchanged.  Of  course,  such 
minor  and  inextensive  changes  as  the  introduction  of 
prayers  for  the  new  regime  into  the  liturgical  service, 
in  place  of  those  which  had  been  recited  for  the 
imperial  family,  were  made  as  a  matter  of  course. 

The  new  Holy  Synod  actually  gained  a  greater 
degree  of  freedom  than  it  had  possessed  formerly:  its 
acts  and  decisions  were  now  valid  without  requiring  the 
approval  of  the  government.  Moreover,  even  though 
it  was  evident  to  all  that  the  entire  structure  of  the 
church  must  be  rebuilt  to  suit  the  new  conditions,  and 
the  projected  Sobor  was  in  the  forefront  of  the  thought 
of  the  church,  yet  no  one  could  foresee  how  extensive 


68  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

and  momentous  the  changes  were  to  be,  and  therefore 
even  those  few  changes  which  the  Provisional  Govern¬ 
ment  felt  necessary  to  introduce  found  the  church 
unprepared.  Hence  they  became  the  source  of  recrim¬ 
ination,  friction,  and  finally  of  a  feeling  of  alienation 
between  the  two  bodies.  The  church  was  not  ready  to 
realize  that  it  could  never  again  be  what  it  was  before 
the  catastrophic  days  of  the  Revolution,  and  would  not 
willingly  surrender  any  of  the  unfair  privileges  or 
power  derived  from  its  unholy  alliance  with  the  tsarist 
autocracy.  Struggle,  therefore,  was  inevitable.  For 
the  time  being,  however,  since  all  this  was  not  clearly 
envisioned,  the  hierarchy  acquiesced  in  the  fact  of  the 
Revolution  and  outwardly  adapted  itself  to  the  new 
order;  thus,  in  spite  of  some  protests,  the  new  regime, 
on  the  whole,  was  accepted. 

The  majority  of  the  parish  clergy,  however,  greeted 
the  overthrow  of  the  tsarist  system,  generally  speaking, 
with  genuine  enthusiasm.  Their  various  local  conven¬ 
tions  adopted  resolutions  expressive  of  their  strong 
sympathies  with  the  new  order.  The  Moscow  Con¬ 
vention  of  Clergy  and  Laymen,  numbering  fifteen  hun¬ 
dred  delegates,  adopted  a  resolution  in  which  they 
have  gone  on  record  as  saying:  .  .  we  profess  our 

unswerving  faithfulness  and  loyalty  to  the  Provisional 
Government,  not  because  of  fear,  but  for  conscience’s 
sake.”1 

The  former  liberal  parties  within  the  church,  sup¬ 
pressed  during  the  reaction  subsequent  to  the  year 
1906,  were  again  revived;  thus  The  Group  of  the 
Thirty -Two  was  reorganized,  and  besides,  in  March, 
1917,  a  more  radical  liberal  party  appeared  under  th6 
title  The  All-Russian  Society  of  the  Democratic  Ortho- 

1  Titlinov:  The  Church  during  the  Revolution ,  p.  57. 


69 


The  March  Revolution  (1917) 

dox  Clergy  and  Laymen,  at  the  head  of  which  stood  the 
former  member  of  the  Duma  and  ex-priest,  D.  Y. 
Popov,  as  president,  and  Priest  A.  T.  Vvedensky,  as 
secretary.  This  organization  professed  a  thorough¬ 
going  opposition  to  the  monarchic  principle  of  govern¬ 
ment  and  strove  for  general  democratization  and 
socialization  of  the  entire  structure  of  Russian  life: 
abolition  of  noble  ranks;  equal  rights  for  women; 
absolute  liberty  of  thought,  word,  and  conscience; 
general  state-supported  grade  and  high-school  educa¬ 
tion;  struggle  against  capitalism;  surrender  of  the  land 
to  the  peasants  and  the  factories  to  the  workers;  and  a 
reform  of  the  church.2  But  the  new  organization  was 
not  strong  in  numbers  on  account  of  its  definitely 
socialistic  character.  Vvedensky,  for  instance,  was 
actively  engaged,  on  the  public  platform  and  through 
the  press,  in  propagating  a  species  of  Christian  social¬ 
ism;  it  was  this  feature  which  caused  the  majority 
within  the  church  to  look  askance  upon  the  whole 
movement,  for  socialism  was  generally  identified  with 
irreligion.  Petrograd  became  the  center  of  the  liberal 
movement,  although  this  city  was  likewise  the  citadel 
of  the  conservative  hierarchy,  being  the  seat  of  the 
Holy  Synod. 

The  Provisional  Government  was  surprisingly  slow 
in  introducing  changes  into  the  religious  sphere,  even 
such  changes  as  those  to  which  the  dominant  political 
parties  had  long  before  committed  themselves.  Thus, 
for  instance,  the  law  granting  full  religious  liberty  was 
not  published  until  July  17,  1917,  when  the  Provisional 
Government  had  been  in  office  some  four  months.  By 
the  provisions  of  this  legislation,  all  civil  limitations 

6  Cf.  A.  Vvedensky:  The  Church  and  the  Government,  Moscow, 
1923,  p.  32.  (In  Russian.) 


70  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 


based  upon  religious  grounds  were  abolished,  and  the 
right  to  pass  from  one  religious  communion  to  another, 
as  well  as  to  sever  one’s  connection  with  all,  was 
granted.  This  last  provision  was  of  great  importance, 
for  hitherto  non-confessionalism,  or  atheism,  was  not 
legally  recognized.  Nevertheless,  the  government 
allowed  the  ecclesiastical  organs  to  retain  some  func¬ 
tions  of  a  civil  nature,  such  as  the  registration  of 
births,  the  solemnization  of  marriages,  and  the  grant¬ 
ing  of  divorces,  and  all  were  compelled  to  resort  to 
the  church  for  a  legal  performance  of  such  acts.3 

Among  the  more  progressive  measures  adopted  by 
the  government  was  the  abolition  of  the  office  of  ober- 
procuror,  and  the  substitution  for  it  of  the  Ministry 
of  Confessions.  This  happened  toward  the  end  of  June, 
when  V.  N.  L’vov  lost  his  office  and  was  succeeded,  in 
the  new  capacity,  by  the  well-known  historian,  A.  V. 
Kartashev.  The  project  as  originally  worked  out  by 
the  minister  of  the  interior  was  of  a  much  wider 
scope;  in  the  beginning  of  July,  he  had  projected  a 
plan  of  mutual  relation  between  the  church  and  the 
state,  which  comprised  the  following  provisions: 

1.  All  state-recognized  religious  communions  were 
to  be,  in  their  internal  administration,  entirely  free. 

2.  Their  administrative  officials  were  subject  to  the 
oversight  of  the  government  only  in  so  far  as  they  per¬ 
formed  acts  of  a  civil  or  legal  nature,  such  as  the 
registry  of  births,  the  solemnization  of  marriages,  the 
granting  of  divorces,  etc. 

3.  The  nature  of  the  oversight  was  exclusively  that 
of  controlling  the  legality  of  such  functions. 

4.  This  oversight  was  to  be  exercised  by  the  Minis¬ 
try  of  Confessions. 

3  Cf.  Titlinov:  op.  cit.,  p.  79. 


71 


The  March  Revolution  (1917) 

5.  The  government  undertook  the  support  of  the 
churches  and  their  officials  and  institutions.  This  sup¬ 
port  was  to  be  granted  to  the  church  directly.4 

The  project,  however,  did  not  receive  the  approval  of 
the  legislative  body  of  the  government,  and  the  only 
item  which  was  realized  was  the  organization  of  the 
Ministry  of  Confessions,  which  was  passed  early  in 
August.  The  functions  of  the  new  ministry  were  de¬ 
fined  as  follows: 

1.  The  Ministry  of  Confessions  is  constituted  for 
dealing  with  all  confessional  matters. 

2.  The  jurisdiction  of  this  ministry  comprises:  (a) 
all  matters  relative  to  the  Orthodox  communion,  tem¬ 
porarily  in  the  same  manner  as  they  now  belong,  in  ac¬ 
cordance  with  the  existing  laws,  within  the  competence 
of  the  ober-procuror  of  the  Holy  Synod;  (b)  of  other 
Christian  and  non-Christian  communions,  which  are 
subject,  according  to  law,  to  the  control  of  the  depart¬ 
ment  of  non-Orthodox  confessions  of  the  Ministry 
of  the  Interior. 

3.  The  posts  of  ober-procuror  of  the  Holy  Synod, 
and  of  his  associate,  are  abolished. 

4.  The  scope  of  the  ministry  is  enlarged  to  include 
the  minister  of  confessions,  and  two  of  his  associates. 

5.  The  minister  of  confessions,  in  the  discharge  of 
duties  enumerated  in  article  2,  unites  in  himself  tem¬ 
porarily  the  entire  jurisdiction  of  the  ober-procuror  and 
the  respective  jurisdiction  of  the  minister  of  the  in¬ 
terior,  until  the  time  of  ratification,  in  a  legal  manner, 
of  the  reforms  of  ecclesiastical  administration  by  the 
All-Russian  Local  Sobor,  and  a  radical  revision  of  the 
relations  of  the  Russian  government  to  the  newly 
constituted  confessions. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  83. 


72  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

6.  To  the  ministry  of  confessions  are  transferred: 
(a)  the  office  of  ober-procuror  of  the  Holy  Synod  with 
its  juridical  department,  which  is  renamed  the  office 
of  the  Ministry  of  Confessions  for  the  Affairs  of  the 
Orthodox  Church,  and  the  juridical  department  of  the 
ober-procuror  is  renamed  the  juridical  department  of 
the  Ministry  of  Confessions;  (b)  the  department  of 
Spiritual  Affairs,  renamed  the  Administration  of  the 
Ministry  of  Confessions  for  Affairs  of  the  non-Orthodox 
and  non-Christian  Confessions. 

7.  For  the  support  of  the  institutions  named  in 
article  5,  until  further  changes,  all  grants  hitherto  made 
them,  as  well  as  other  grants,  are  secured  for  that  pur¬ 
pose,  and  are  to  be  paid  from  the  treasury  as  well  as 
from  special  means.0 

From  this  lengthy  official  document  it  is  apparent 
that  fundamentally  nothing  was  changed  in  the  old 
system  of  the  ober-procural  rule  but  the  name, 
although  professedly  the  arrangement  was  to  be  of 
only  a  temporary  duration,  until  the  church  Sobor 
should  work  out  a  permanent  system  of  supreme 
administration. 

The  church,  in  a  fairly  definite  and  clear  manner, 
expressed  its  mind  on  the  subject  at  the  Convention  of 
the  Clergy  and  Laymen,  held  in  Moscow,  in  June,  1917. 
This  Convention  was  a  very  important  one,  for  it 
served  to  forecast  the  character  of  the  national  Sobor 
which  was  shortly  to  be  convened.  It  began  with 
seven  hundred  delegates,  but  grew,  as  the  sessions 
progressed,  to  twelve  hundred  members.  On  the 
whole,  it  was  quite  friendly  to  the  government, 
which,  considering  that  the  delegates  regarded  them¬ 
selves  as  representing  the  one  hundred  and  fourteen 

6  Ibid.,  p.  84. 


73 


The  March  Revolution  (1917) 

millions  of  Orthodox  Russians,  was  an  important  cir¬ 
cumstance.  During  the  ten  days  of  its  activity,  the 
Convention  worked  out  and  passed  upon  all  the  more 
important  reforms  which  were  deemed  essential  for 
the  reorganized  church  of  Russia,  and  also  expressed 
its  judgment  upon  the  ecclesiastical  measures  either 
adopted  or  contemplated  by  the  government.  Among 
these  the  Convention  was  apprehensive  of  the  drift 
toward  positions  which  would  estrange  the  government 
from  the  church,  or  ultimately  bring  about  a  separation 
of  the  church  from  the  state.  This  was  greatly  feared 
by  the  ecclesiastical  representatives.  They  demanded 
that  their  communion  should  retain  the  primacy  among 
the  religious  bodies  of  Russia  and  also  should  continue 
to  enjoy  certain  legal  privileges  which  were  not  granted 
to  the  rest.  This  general  demand  was  also  formulated 
by  the  pre-Sobor  committee,  which  was  organized  in 
June,  and  which  published  its  pronouncement  on  July 
13,  1917.  Its  provisions  were  as  follows: 

The  Orthodox  church  should  occupy  in  the  Russian 
government  the  primary,  most  favored  publico- jurid¬ 
ical  position  among  the  communions,  due  her  as  the 
greatest  national  sanctuary,  by  reason  of  her  exclusive 
historical  and  cultural  value,  as  well  as  by  her  being 
the  confession  of  the  majority  of  the  population.  In 
accordance  with  the  principle  of  liberty  of  conscience 
and  of  religious  confession,  granted  by  the  new  regime 
in  Russia,  the  Orthodox  church  should  wield  such  lib¬ 
erty  in  its  utmost  fullness.  These  fundamental  prin¬ 
ciples  comprise  the  following  points: 

1.  The  Orthodox  church  in  Russia,  as  regards  her 
constitution,  legislation,  administration,  judiciary, 
doctrine  and  moral  precepts,  ritual,  inner  ecclesiastical 
discipline  and  outward  relation  with  other  confessions, 
is  independent  of  the  government.  (Autonomy.) 


74  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

2.  The  decisions,  passed  for  her  own  direction  by 
the  Orthodox  church  in  a  manner  specified  by  herself, 
are  acknowledged  by  the  government  as  legal  norms, 
possessing,  from  the  time  of  their  publication  by  the 
ecclesiastical  authorities,  obligatory  authority  for  all 
individuals  and  institutions  belonging  to  the  Orthodox 
Russian  Church  within  as  well  as  beyond  the  borders. 

3.  The  acts  of  the  officials  of  the  Orthodox  church 
are  subject  to  the  oversight  of  the  government  ex¬ 
clusively  in  the  matter  of  their  correspondence  with 
the  governmental  laws;  aside  from  this,  these  officials 
are  responsible  to  the  government  only  in  accordance 
with  the  due  process  of  law. 

4.  The  government  shall  recognize  the  ecclesiastical 
hierarchy  and  ecclesiastical  institutions  ordained  by 
ecclesiastical  decisions.  The  government  shall  recog¬ 
nize  the  same  validity  of  the  administrative  and 
judicial  acts  of  such  ecclesiastical  institutions  and 
proper  church  authorities  as  is  ascribed  to  them  by  the 
ecclesiastical  decrees,  as  long  as  such  acts  do  not  con¬ 
flict  with  the  governmental  laws.  The  verdict  as  to 
the  legality  of  the  acts  of  church  authorities  shall  be 
according  to  law. 

5.  The  clergy,  monks,  and  psalm-singers,  who  have 
completed  their  course  of  study  in  theological  institu¬ 
tions  or  other  professional  schools,  and  likewise  the 
psalm-singers  of  the  Edinovertsi  who  have  completed 
their  special  training,  shall  be  free  from  the  military, 
as  well  as  other  natural  civil  duties. 

6.  Whenever  at  least  one  of  the  parties  to  a  marriage 
belongs  to  the  Orthodox  church,  the  marriage  cere¬ 
mony  according  to  the  Orthodox  rite  shall  be  acknowl¬ 
edged  as  the  legal  solemnization  of  marriage. 

7.  Ecclesiastically  juridical  pronouncements  con¬ 
cerning  divorce,  or  illegality  or  non-actuality  of  a  mar¬ 
riage,  shall  be  acknowledged  as  valid  juridical  decisions. 


75 


The  March  Revolution  (1917) 

8.  Registry  of  births  by  the  church  shall  possess 
civil  validity,  provided  it  is  kept  in  accordance  with 
the  governmental  laws. 

9.  Liberty  of  profession  and  preaching  of  the  Ortho¬ 
dox  faith,  and  the  right  openly  to  conduct  the  divine 
services,  shall  be  acknowledged  and  defended  by  the 
governmental  authorities. 

10.  The  twelve  high  holidays,  Sundays,  and  the 
days  especially  observed  by  the  Orthodox  church,  shall 
be  acknowledged  by  the  governmental  authorities  as 
the  days  of  rest. 

11.  The  head  of  the  Russian  government,  as  well 
as  the  minister  of  confessions,  must  be  members  of  the 
Orthodox  church. 

12.  On  all  state  occasions  when  the  government 
requires  religious  functions,  the  Orthodox  church  shall 
be  given  preference. 

13.  The  Orthodox  church  shall  be  free  to  establish 
grade,  middle,  and  high  schools,  not  only  the  profes¬ 
sionally  theological,  but  all  general  educational  insti¬ 
tutions  as  well.  The  government  shall  grant  these 
schools  all  rights  of  state  institutions  of  learning. 

14.  In  all  secular  governmental  schools,  as  well  as 
in  private  institutions  attended  by  children  of  Ortho¬ 
dox  parents,  teaching  of  the  catechism  shall  be  com¬ 
pulsory.  The  support  of  the  catechetical  instructors 
in  governmental  schools  shall  be  provided  for  from 
the  state  treasury. 

15.  All  administrative  offices  of  the  Orthodox  church 
possess  the  right  of  property  of  juridical  persons. 
The  existing  administrative  offices  of  the  Ortho¬ 
dox  church  shall  retain  the  property  which  they 
possess  at  the  present  time;  moreover,  they  may 
not  be  abolished,  and  their  property  may  not  be 
confiscated,  without  the  consent  of  the  ecclesiastical 
authorities. 


76  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

16.  Church  properties  not  yielding  a  net  income 
shall  be  free  from  taxation. 

17.  The  Orthodox  church  shall  receive  out  of  the 
state  treasury  annual  appropriation  to  the  limit  of  its 
actual  needs,  for  which  it  shall  be  responsible  in 
accordance  with  general  principles.* 

It  is  abundantly  clear  from  this  interesting  docu¬ 
ment  what  kind  of  modus  vivendi  the  church  desired, 
and  that  such  demands  could  not  be  granted  even  by 
the  Provisional  Government.  When  this  government 
was  superseded  by  the  Soviet  power,  manifestly  a 
collision  was  unavoidable  and  inevitable.  The  church 
was  unwilling  to  surrender  the  unfair  advantages  it 
had  formerly  derived  from  its  union  with  the  state, 
and  the  new  regime,  professedly  striving  to  eradicate 
the  causes  and  consequences  of  the  injustice  to  which 
the  nations  of  Russia  were  subjected  under  the  tsars, 
out  of  principle  could  not  grant  the  full  measure  of  the 
demands  of  the  church. 

The  inevitableness  of  the  collision  of  the  two  forces 
became  apparent  even  during  the  last  months  of  the 
Provisional  Government,  when  on  June  20  a  law  was 
passed  whereby  all  schools  supported  from  public  funds 
passed  into  the  control  of  the  Ministry  of  Education; 
this  affected  primarily  the  parochial  and  other  ecclesias¬ 
tically  controlled  educational  institutions.  It  must  be 
remembered  that  the  number  of  ecclesiastically  con¬ 
trolled  schools  “amounted  to  thirty-seven  thousand,  i.e. 
one-third  of  all  the  schools  in  Russia.”  7  Although 
they  were  supported  by  the  government,  they  served 
the  interests  of  the  church,  and  under  the  new  condi¬ 
tions  it  was  unthinkable  that  such  an  anomalous  con- 

8  Titlinov:  op.  cit.,  pp.  80-82. 

7  Ibid.,  p.  65. 


77 


The  March  Revolution  (1917) 

dition  could  persist;  therefore  the  law  of  June  20  was 
natural  enough.  It  is,  moreover,  of  special  interest 
to  notice  that  even  the  teaching  staff  of  these  schools 
demanded  that  action,  and  approved  that  all  schools 
be  unified  under  the  common  direction  of  the  Ministry 
of  Education.  But  the  church  at  large  felt  this  blow 
heavily  and  regarded  the  transfer  of  parochial  schools 
to  the  control  of  the  state  as  a  calamity  as  well  as  an 
injustice.  The  Moscow  Convention  of  Clergy  and  Lay¬ 
men,  which  met  in  June,  protested  against  it,  and  the 
formulation  of  the  demands  of  the  church,  as  pub¬ 
lished  by  the  pre-Sobor  committee  in  July,  boldly 
demanded  the  restitution  of  these  schools,  and  even  the 
compulsory,  state-supported,  teaching  of  the  catechism. 
The  church  clearly  realized  what  it  had  at  stake:  the 
control  of  the  parochial  schools,  and  the  compulsory 
teaching  of  the  catechism  of  all  Orthodox  children, 
were  of  immense  importance  for  the  training  of  the 
younger  generation  in  the  official  theological  system. 
Their  loss  meant  a  gradual  loss  of  the  influence  wielded 
so  despotically  by  the  church,  and  it  likewise  meant 
a  corresponding  gain  of  influence  of  the  non-confes¬ 
sional — or  as  the  church  interpreted  it,  “godless” — 
secular  education.  But  in  spite  of  these  vigorous  pro¬ 
tests,  the  governmental  policy  remained  in  force  and 
the  law  of  June  20  went  into  effect. 

The  Ministry  of  Education,  moreover,  planned  to 
remove  from  the  list  of  required  subjects  the  teaching 
of  the  Orthodox  Catechism — “the  law  of  God/’  as  it 
was  officially  termed — which  was  to  be  made  optional. 
Formerly,  it  was  a  required  subject  of  study  in  all 
schools,  not  only  the  grammar,  but  also  the  high,  the 
technical,  and  the  classical  schools,  as  well  as  in  the 
military  academies  and  the  army.  It  is  not  an  over- 


78  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

statement  to  say  that  the  chief  strength  of  the  tsarist 
theocracy  lay  in  this  assiduous  use  of  the  schools  for 
the  widest  dissemination  of  the  religious — i.e.  theo¬ 
cratic — sanctions  of  the  tsarist  power.  The  church 
fought  against  the  threatened  danger  with  might  and 
main,  and  when  its  opposition  remained  ineffectual, 
for  the  government  was  justifying  its  stand  by  point¬ 
ing  out  that  to  give  one  ecclesiastical  organization  an 
unfair  advantage  over  the  rest  would  amount  to  nulli¬ 
fying  the  provisions  of  liberty  of  conscience  and  free¬ 
dom  of  religious  profession,  the  church  quite  definitely 
began  to  regard  the  state  in  the  light  of  its  enemy. 
The  hierarchy  began  to  talk  of  opposing  the  ‘Anti¬ 
christian”  government,  with  its  Ministry  of  Confes¬ 
sions,  by  a  “strong”  ecclesiastical  authority,  a  strong 
and  energetic  patriarch.  He  was  to  be  for  the  church 
what  formerly  the  tsar  was  for  the  state :  a  representa¬ 
tive  of  the  might  and  will-to-power  of  the  ecclesiastical 
monarchy.  It  was  with  this  feeling  widespread,  and 
under  the  conviction  of  the  increasingly  unfriendly 
relations  with  the  state,  that  the  election  of  the  dele¬ 
gates  to  the  All-Russian  Sobor  (Council)  was  carried 
on,  and  in  consequence  of  it  the  selection  of  the  person¬ 
nel  was  largely  influenced  thereby.  The  Sobor,  as  it 
turned  out,  was  predominantly  of  a  conservative  char¬ 
acter,  with  the  reactionary  faction  strongly  entrenched 
and  wielding  an  overwhelming  influence. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  FIRST  ALL-RUSSIAN  LOCAL  SOBOR  OF  1917 

The  Synodical  proclamation  of  its  intention  to  call 
the  long-desired  and  long-deferred  Sobor  was  published 
on  April  29,  1917.  In  this  document  the  reason  for 
calling  the  Sobor  was  stated  as  that  “the  governmental 
overthrow  which  has  taken  place  has  radically  changed 
our  social  and  political  life,  securing  even  for  the  church 
the  possibility  and  right  of  free  organization.  The 
secret  dream  of  the  Russian  Orthodox  people  has 
become  realizable,  and  the  calling  of  the  local  Sobor  in 
the  nearest  possible  future  now  becomes  necessary.”  1 
The  proclamation  was  signed,  among  others,  even  by 
such  conservative  leaders  as  was  Archbishop  Agath- 
angel,  a  known  member  of  The  Black  Hundred,  Bishop 
Andrei  (who  was  by  family  Prince  Ukhtomsky),  and 
the  former  court  chaplain,  Lyubimov.  The  same  day, 
the  Synod  decided  to  appoint  a  pre-Sobor  committee, 
which  was  to  prepare  the  necessary  agenda  for  the 
Sobor.  This  committee,  from  time  to  time  enlarged, 
had  a  goodly  proportion  of  conservative  leaders  among 
its  members,  for  nothing  else  could  really  be  expected. 

By  a  second  proclamation  of  the  Holy  Synod,  issued 
on  July  5  of  the  same  year,  the  Sobor  itself  was  called 
for  the  15th  of  August,  to  meet  in  “the  God-fearing, 

1  Vvedensky:  The  Church  and  the  Government ,  p.  59;  cf.  for  the 
text  of  the  entire  document. 

79 


80  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

ancient  city  of  Moscow/5  as  the  document  styled  it. 
Three  days  before  the  Sobor  opened  its  sessions,  the 
pre-Sobor  commission  published  its  reports,  embody¬ 
ing  a  formidable  mass  of  matters  needing  the  atten¬ 
tion  of  the  Sobor,  such  as  the  legal  status  of  the  Ortho¬ 
dox  church  in  relation  to  the  state  and  a  new  form 
of  the  supreme  church  government;  and  it  is  interest¬ 
ing  to  note  that  this  law-project  contemplated  the 
periodic  calling  of  the  national  Sobor,  which  would  be 
the  supreme  judiciary,  having  for  administrative  pur¬ 
poses  two  organs,  the  Holy  Synod  and  the  Supreme 
Ecclesiastical  Council.2  Furthermore,  the  projects 
included  reorganization  of  the  constitution  of  the  par¬ 
ish,  of  the  schools,  and  a  mass  of  other  items  too 
numerous  to  mention.  The  government,  by  its  pro¬ 
nouncement  of  August  11,  granted  the  Sobor  the  right 
to  work  out  the  new  form  of  church  government 
unhindered,  but  requested  that  the  finished  product  be 
submitted  to  the  Ministry  of  Confessions  for  approval ; 
until  such  legal  changes,  adopted  by  the  Sobor  and 
approved  by  the  government,  were  effected,  the  old 
church  authorities  and  the  old  order  of  things  were  to 
remain  undisturbed.  Moreover,  the  Provisional  Gov¬ 
ernment  willingly  granted  one  million  rubles  for  the 
expenses  of  the  church  assembly. 

When  the  elections  for  the  Sobor  were  completed, 
it  was  found  that  the  number  of  the  delegates  amounted 
to  five  hundred  and  sixty-four,  from  which  number 
ten  were  metropolitans,  seventeen  archbishops,  fifty- 
two  bishops,  two  protopresbyters,  fifteen  archiman¬ 
drites,  two  hegumens,  three  hieromonks,  four  mitered 
archpriests,  sixty-four  archpriests,  fifty-four  priests, 
two  archdeacons,  eight  deacons,  twenty-six  psalm-sing- 

2  See  Ibid.,  p.  68,  where  the  whole  document  is  printed  in  full. 


First  All-Russian  Local  Sobor  of  1917  81 

ers,  and  two  hundred  and  seventy-eight  laymen.8  It 
will  be  noticed  that  the  above  enumeration  does  not 
account  for  twenty-seven  delegates;  if  these  are  to  be 
counted  with  the  clerical  members,  then  the  clerical 
party  exceeded  the  lay  representatives  by  eight  per¬ 
sons.  In  that  case,  the  relative  strength  of  the  clergy 
and  laymen  was  almost  equally  distributed.  Among 
the  lay  delegates  was  a  large  number  of  professors 
(41),  of  whom  the  two  princes  Trubetski  were  the 
most  prominent;  among  other  prominent  lay  members 
were  men  like  Rodzyanko,  the  president  of  the  Duma, 
General  Artamonov,  Count  Apraksin,  etc.  The  repre¬ 
sentatives  were  democratically  elected  and  represented 
all  the  sixty-six  dioceses  of  Russia:  each  diocese 
sent  its  bishop,  two  other  members  of  the  clergy, 
and  three  laymen.  Aside  from  this,  the  four  great 
theological  academies  contributed  sixteen  delegates, 
equally  distributed  among  them;  each  univer¬ 
sity  was  represented  by  one  delegate,  and  the  mon¬ 
asteries  of  Russia  had  their  spokesmen  in  a  group  of 
about  ten  delegates.  The  diocesan  delegates  had  been 
elected  by  a  diocesan  council  in  a  fairly  democratic 
fashion. 

At  last,  the  memorable  Sobor,  the  first  after  the  two 
centuries  of  the  oppressive  reign  of  the  Holy  Synod, 
was  opened.  As  the  official  report  of  the  Sobor,  The 
Acts  of  the  Holy  Sobor  of  the  Orthodox  Russian 
Church,  describes  it: 

In  the  year  one  thousand  nine  hundred  and  seven¬ 
teen  since  the  birth  of  Christ,  on  August  15,  on  the  day 
of  the  revered  Assumption  of  the  Most  Holy  Mother 
of  God,  in  the  God-saved  city  of  Moscow,  in  the  Great 
Cathedral  of  the  Assumption,  the  Holy  Sobor  of  the 

*  Ibid.,  p.  73. 


82  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

Orthodox  Russian  Church  was  opened,  in  accordance 
with  the  rites  specially  prepared  for  the  occasion  by 
the  Holy  Synod.  The  liturgy  was  sung  by  Vladimir  of 
Kiev,  Platon  of  Tiflis,  and  Benjamin  of  Petrograd. 
Occupying  the  seats  of  honor  among  the  worshipers 
were  the  premier  minister,  A.  T.  Kerensky,  the  minister 
of  the  interior,  N.  D.  Avksentev,  and  the  minister  of 
confessions,  A.  V.  Kartashev,  with  his  associate,  C.  A. 
Kotlyarovsky.4 

At  the  second  session,  which  was  presided  over  by 
Metropolitan  Vladimir  of  Kiev,  the  minister  of  confes¬ 
sions,  Kartashev,  addressed  the  Sobor  in  behalf  of 
the  Provisional  Government.  He  laid  stress  in  his 
speech  upon  the  importance  of  the  Sobor,  which,  he 
said,  the  Provisional  Government  recognized  as  the 
plenary  legislative  organ  of  the  Russian  church;  he 
explained  that  the  government  was  awaiting  the  action 
of  the  Sobor  regarding  the  new  organization  of  the 
entire  administrative  structure  of  the  church,  and  was 
ready  to  withdraw  from  the  jurisdiction  of  its  minister 
of  confessions  the  hitherto  performed  ober-procurorial 
duties,  in  order  to  make  room  for  the  system  devised 
by  the  Sobor,  as  soon  as  such  a  scheme  should  receive 
the  government’s  approval;  thereafter,  the  Ministry 
of  Confessions  would  confine  its  activities  to  a  general 
oversight  of  the  legal  aspects  of  the  working  of  the 
new  system,  leaving  the  church  otherwise  autonomous.6 

This  address  was  followed  by  a  considerable  number 
of  other  congratulatory  speeches,  among  which  it  may 
be  worth  while  to  mention  speakers  like  V.  N.  L’vov, 
representing  the  Orthodox  church  committee  of  the 
Duma,  and  M.  V.  Rodzyanko,  president  of  the  Duma. 

4  Ibid,.,  p.  73. 

6  Ibid.,  p.  77ff. 


First  All-Russian  Local  Sobor  of  1917  83 

As  far  as  the  organization  of  the  Sobor  was  con¬ 
cerned,  the  conservative  party  had  gained  a  victory 
in  the  pre-Sobor  committee  which  greatly  affected  the 
relative  powers  of  the  episcopal  as  against  the  clerical 
and  lay  delegates.  The  conservatives  had  gained  the 
concession  whereby  the  Sobor  was  divided  into  two 
‘‘houses”  or  “curiae”:  an  episcopal  one,  with  special 
prerogatives  to  rule  and  the  power  to  veto  any  decision 
of  the  Sobor,  and  consequently  possessing  a  substantial 
balance  of  power;  and  the  clerical-lay  curia,  whose 
position  was  rendered  less  influential  by  reason  of  the 
prerogatives  of  the  hierarchy.  The  liberal  party,  within 
the  pre-Sobor  committee  as  well  as  within  the  Sobor, 
fought  against  the  measure  tooth  and  nail,  but  with 
no  result;  the  struggle,  however,  was  ominously  pro¬ 
phetic  of  the  combats  to  be  waged  in  the  future 
which  ultimately  were  to  culminate  in  an  open  schism 
rending  the  church  in  twain. 

As  for  the  parties  within  the  Sobor,  it  could  not  be 
pronounced  entirely  conservative,  even  though  it  had 
a  comfortable  conservative  majority.  This  party,  led 
by  the  talented  and  able  Metropolitan  Antony  Khrapo- 
vitsky,  adopted  for  its  slogan  the  restoration  of  the 
patriarchate,  and  could  not  imagine  that  the  white 
patriarchal  cowl  could  grace  any  other  head  than  that 
of  their  leader.  In  the  second  place,  the  Sobor  had  a 
moderate  center  of  a  considerable  size,  largely  com¬ 
posed  of  the  lay  intelligentsia,  and  led  by  such  prom¬ 
inent  religious  personalities  as  Prince  Eugene  N. 
Trubetskoy  and  Father  Sergei  N.  Bulgakov.  On  the 
whole,  this  group  supported  the  aspirations  and  the 
demands  of  the  party  of  the  right,  and  thus  gave  that 
group  its  dominant  influence.  Lastly,  the  radical 
party  of  the  left  was  likewise  represented,  although  by 


84  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

a  minority,  which  was  not  able  to  influence  greatly  the 
policies  of  the  Sobor. 

Among  the  first  items  of  business  taken  up  by  the 
Sobor  was  the  matter  of  transferring  the  parochial 
and  teachers’  schools,  controlled  by  the  church  but 
supported  out  of  the  funds  of  the  state,  to  the  Ministry 
of  Education,  together  with  the  proposed  radical 
limitation  of  the  teaching  of  the  catechism.  After  a 
vigorous  debate  regarding  these  questions,  the  Sobor 
decided  to  protest  against  the  measures,  drawing  up  a 
resolution  roundly  denouncing  the  action  of  the  gov¬ 
ernment.  The  Sobor  demanded  from  the  authorities 
a  change  of  the  law  of  June  20,  which  ordered  the 
transfer  of  the  schools  and  pronounced  the  stand  of 
the  ministry  regarding  the  limitation  of  the  teaching 
of  the  catechism  hostile  to  the  church.  The  resolution 
was  delivered  by  a  special  delegation,  headed  by  a 
pronounced  conservative  hierarch,  Bishop  Cyrill.  In 
spite  of  the  protestations  of  the  Sobor,  the  government 
remained  firm  in  its  stand  regarding  the  transfer  of 
the  schools,  for  that  had  to  do  with  legislation  which 
had  already  been  promulgated;  but  the  delegation 
gained  some  concessions  regarding  the  second  half 
of  its  protest,  for  the  authorities  were  willing  to  take 
it  into  consideration.  The  reason  for  this  milder  atti¬ 
tude  was  that  the  matter  of  limiting  the  teaching 
of  the  catechism  by  making  the  subject  elective  rather 
than  compulsory  was  in  a  preliminary  stage  of  a  law- 
project,  and  had  not  yet  been  promulgated. 

The  Sobor  also  gave  a  great  deal  of  attention  to  the 
approaching  elections  to  the  Constituent  Assembly, 
which  was  to  give  Russia  its  definite  and  permanent 
form  of  government.  Its  growing  uneasiness  in  regard 


First  All-Russian  Local  Sobor  of  1917  85 

to  the  policies  of  the  Provisional  Government,  or  rather 
its  increasingly  hostile  attitude  toward  that  regime, 
may  be  easily  gathered  from  an  interesting  episode 
occurring  at  the  time  of  Kornilov’s  defection.  This 
supreme  commander  of  the  Russian  armies,  disgusted 
with  the  inefficiency  of  the  government,  started  a 
mutinous  march  upon  Petrograd,  at  the  same  time 
appealing  to  the  Sobor  for  recognition.  His  message 
threw  the  Sobor  into  confusion  as  to  the  right  course 
of  action:  it  would  have  gladly  seen  the  Provisional 
Government  crumble,  but  was  not  sure  of  the  ulti¬ 
mate  success  of  Kornilov’s  venture.  In  a  strictly  secret 
meeting  (the  protocol  of  which,  naturally,  does  not 
appear  in  the  official  Acts  of  the  Sobor)  it  pondered 
and  deliberated  the  question.  Fortunately,  the  swift 
debacle  of  the  supreme  commander’s  revolt  relieved 
the  Sobor  of  the  necessity  of  deciding  the  delicate 
question. 

Discussion  regarding  the  restoration  of  the  patri¬ 
archate  became  prominent  during  the  first  half  of  the 
month  of  September.  It  was  discussed  in  the  section 
on  the  supreme  church  administration,  under  the 
chairmanship  of  Bishop  Methodius,  where  the  majority 
of  the  members  favored  it.  When  the  section  voted 
upon  the  question,  it  was  adopted  by  fifty-six  yeas 
against  thirty-two  nays;  although  this  was  against  the 
rules,  the  decision  of  the  section  was  reported  to  the 
Sobor.  On  September  11,  Bishop  Methodius  made 
his  report  before  the  whole  council,  recommending  the 
reestablishment  of  the  patriarchate.  The  discussion 
regarding  this  matter  brought  to  light  the  most  funda¬ 
mental  issues  dividing  the  parties  and  clearly  defined 
the  divergent  policies  of  the  two  main  types  of  think- 


86  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

ing  among  the  delegates  of  the  Sobor.  The  majority 
of  the  arguments  in  favor  of  the  restoration  of  the 
patriarchate  were  based  upon  the  necessity  of  a  strong 
leader  who  would  be  able  not  only  to  defend  the  church 
against  any  inimical  attempts  on  the  part  of  the  gov¬ 
ernment,  but  who  would  at  the  same  time  assume  an 
energetic,  aggressive  policy  in  the  direction  of  strength¬ 
ening  the  interests  of  the  church.  It  was  quite  evident 
that  the  recent  acts  of  the  Provisional  Government, 
such  as  the  creation  of  the  Ministry  of  Confessions, 
whereby  the  Orthodox  church  was  threatened  with  the 
loss  of  its  unfair  advantages  over  other  Christian 
communions,  and  the  transfer  of  the  church  schools 
to  the  control  of  the  Ministry  of  Education,  deeply 
prejudiced  the  members  of  the  Sobor  against  the 
government.  They  were  in  an  apprehensive  mood, 
and  therefore  they  desired  to  organize  the  supreme 
office  in  such  a  manner  as  to  enable  the  church  to  repel 
the  attacks  of  the  non-confessional,  ( i.e .  irreligious,  as 
the  Sobor  interpreted  the  term)  government.  This 
discussion  lasted  throughout  October  and  might  have 
been  continued  indefinitely,  and  with  but  doubtful 
results,  were  it  not  for  the  outbreak  of  the  October 
Revolution,  which  radically  changed  the  whole  aspect 
of  the  situation. 

On  October  25,  1917,  the  Provisional  Government, 
headed  by  Kerensky,  fell,  and  the  supreme  power  was 
seized  by  the  Soviets,  i.e .  that  left  wing  of  the  social¬ 
ists,  whose  attitude  toward  the  church  was  the  most 
radical.  Moscow,  where  the  forces  of  the  overthrown 
government  held  the  grim  ancient  tsarist  citadel  and 
palace,  Kremlin — where,  by  the  way,  the  Sobor  was 
meeting — resisted  the  besieging  “red”  forces  for  some 
time  longer.  It  was,  therefore,  under  the  thunder 


First  All-Russian  Local  Sobor  of  1917  87 

of  the  guns  and  roar  of  battle  that  the  constituent 
church  assembly  deliberated  about  the  regeneration 
of  the  Russian  church. 

On  October  28,  the  meeting  of  the  Sobor,  under  the 
presidency  of  the  metropolitan  of  Moscow,  Tikhon, 
was  opened  by  him  with  a  short  speech  suggesting  that 
the  further  discussion  of  the  restoration  of  the  patri¬ 
archate  be  dispensed  with,  and  the  addresses  of  the 
speakers  already  scheduled  be  entered  into  the  protocol 
undelivered.  This  was  seconded  by  a  member  of  the 
Sobor,  Archpriest  Lakhostsky,  who  stressed  the  neces¬ 
sity  of  the  restoration  of  the  patriarchate,  especially 
in  the  difficult  period  the  church  was  facing;  he 
referred  to  the  imprisonment  of  the  minister  of  confes¬ 
sions  in  the  Peter  and  Paul  fortress,  and  stressed  that 
only  the  patriarch’s  voice  would  “sound  authoritatively 
in  the  political  spheres.”  Tikhon  wished  to  submit  this 
motion  to  voting  without  the  formality  of  a  discussion, 
but  on  account  of  loud  protests  against  such  breach 
of  rules,  he  permitted  Professor  Kudryavtsev,  one  of 
the  radical  delegates,  to  speak;  this  speaker  demanded 
that  the  Sobor  should  first  define  what  the  functions 
and  prerogatives,  as  well  as  the  authority  and  juris¬ 
diction,  of  the  national  Sobors  were  to  be,  before  the 
election  of  the  patriarch  should  take  place.  Although 
his  voice  went  unheeded,  and  the  majority  wished  the 
discussion  dispensed  with  and  an  immediate  election 
undertaken,  the  hierarch  who  presented  the  report  of 
the  section  of  the  supreme  ecclesiastical  administration 
himself  urged  that  the  decisive  step  be  postponed  till  a 
more  opportune  time. 

The  historic  day  upon  which  the  decision  to  rein¬ 
state  the  patriarchate  was  rendered  fell  on  October  30. 
The  meeting  was  attended  by  a  very  small  number  of 


88  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

delegates,  because  the  firing  in  the  streets  kept  many 
members  away  on  account  of  the  obvious  danger  of 
showing  themselves  in  the  streets ;  moreover,  some  did 
not  expect  that  the  momentous  question  would  be 
adjudged  so  precipitously  and  therefore  had  absented 
themselves.  Nevertheless,  the  group  in  attendance 
took  it  upon  itself  to  proceed  without  delay.  The 
motion  to  proceed  with  the  adoption  of  the  project 
of  restoration  of  the  patriarchate,  without  any  further 
discussion,  prevailed.  When  some  demanded  a  count  to 
ascertain  whether  a  quorum  was  present,  the  presi¬ 
dent,  Metropolitan  Tikhon,  answered  the  question  in 
the  affirmative,  announcing  317  delegates  to  be  present, 
thus  giving  the  meeting  the  required  one-half.  As  it 
turned  out  later,  during  the  actual  voting,  the  sum 
total  of  all  the  votes  cast  amounted  to  265,  and  since 
the  official  number  of  delegates  to  the  Sobor  was  564, 
it  follows  that  a  quorum  was  not  present  when  the  most 
momentous  question  in  the  modern  history  of  the 
Russian  church  was  decided.6 

But  before  the  actual  voting  was  undertaken, 
because  of  many  protests,  the  president  permitted  some 
discussion  of  the  question.  Those  who  insisted  upon 
immediate  action,  on  the  ground  that  the  meeting  had 
a  legal  right  to  proceed  by  reason  of  possessing  a 
quorum,  urged  that  it  was  very  doubtful  whether  the 
Sobor  would  be  permitted  by  the  new  regime  ever  to 
meet  again,  and  insisted  that  in  all  probability  the 
present  was  its  last  meeting;  these  arguments  finally 
prevailed.  The  voting  itself  revealed  the  fact  that  the 
total  number  of  delegates  present  was  only  265,  of 

8  Cf.  Metropolitan  Seraphim’s  “About  the  Supreme  Ecclesiastical 
Administration,”  in  Messenger  of  the  Holy  Synod  of  the  Russian 
Orthodox  Church,  1926,  No.  6,  p.  22.  (In  Russian.) 


First  All-Russian  Local  Sobor  of  1917  89 

whom  141  voted  for  the  restoration  of  the  patriarchate, 
112  against  it,  and  12  abstained  from  voting.  From 
this  surprising  result  it  is  evident  that,  among  the 
less  than  one-half  of  the  total  number  of  members  of 
the  Sobor  who  were  present  at  the  historic  meeting, 
only  a  little  more  than  one-half  voted  for  the  patri¬ 
archate,  and  that  these  141  delegates  amounted  to 
just  one-quarter  of  the  total  number.  The  enormously 
important  question  of  the  restoration  of  the  patri¬ 
archate  was  thus  really  carried  by  only  one-fourth  of 
the  delegates  of  the  church.7 

Thereupon  the  Sobor  proceeded  with  the  election  of 
candidates  for  the  patriarchal  dignity.  It  was  generally 
expected  that  Metropolitan  Antony  (Khrapovitsky), 
of  Kharkov,  for  a  long  time  the  outstanding  leader  of 
the  patriarchal  party  and  of  the  conservative  hierarchy 
in  general,  would  undoubtedly  be  elected  patriarch. 
But  the  result  was  different,  thanks  to  the  method  of 
procedure  adopted  for  this  occasion;  the  Sobor  fol¬ 
lowed  the  method  which  had  first  been  used  in  1634  for 
the  election  of  patriarch  Joasaph  I,  and  had  been  since 
used  in  all  patriarchal  elections.  A  secret  ballot,  in 
which  all  delegates  participated,  was  held  for  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  selecting  three  candidates;  the  persons  receiv¬ 
ing  the  highest  number  of  votes  were  declared  to 
be  the  candidates.  The  first  and  second  vote  gave  the 
required  majority  to  Antony,  metropolitan  of  Khar¬ 
kov,  who  had  been  leader  of  the  reactionary  Black 
Hundred  as  well  as  of  the  patriarchal  party  in  the 
Sobor,  and  who  later  left  Russia  in  the  wake  of  the 
defeated  Wrangel  White  Guards;  and  to  Arsenius, 
archbishop  of  Novgorod.  It  was  not  till  the  third  vote 
that  Tikhon,  metropolitan  of  Moscow,  was  nominated. 

7  Ibid.,  p.  23. 


I 


90  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

Although  this  is  the  order  most  commonly  stated,  even 
by  such  eye-witnesses  as  Professor  B.  V.  Titlinov,8  yet 
Metropolitan  Seraphim  in  his  description9  reverses 
the  order :  he  states  that  Archbishop  Arsenius  received 
199  votes,  Metropolitan  Tikhon,  162,  and  Archbishop 
Antony,  159.  The  election  proper  occurred  on  Novem¬ 
ber  5.  The  names  of  the  three  candidates,  care¬ 
fully  sealed  in  wax  rolls  of  equal  size  and  weight,  had 
been  deposited  the  night  before  in  an  urn,  placed 
before  the  famous  icon  of  the  Vladimir  Mother  of  God, 
which  was  brought  for  that  purpose  from  the  ancient 
Cathedral  of  the  Assumption  in  the  Kremlin  to  the 
beautiful,  comparatively  modern  Church  of  the  Savior, 
where  the  election  was  in  progress.  The  drawing  of 
lots,  whereby  the  selection  of  one  of  the  three  candi¬ 
dates  was  left  to  “the  will  of  God,”  was  described  by  an 
eye-witness,  Prince  Gregory  Trubetskoy,  in  these  mov¬ 
ing  terms: 

I  shall  never  forget  the  moment  when  the  elder 
of  the  recluse-monks,  Father  Alexius,  drew  from 
the  urn,  which  had  stood  all  the  previous  night  before 
the  icon  of  the  Vladimir  Mother  of  God,  the  slip  with 
the  name  of  the  metropolitan  of  Moscow,  Tikhon.  The 
cry  of  “God’s  chosen  one!”  arose  throughout  the 
church.  And  the  people  from  the  beginning  regarded 
the  prelate  as  such,  seeing  in  him  their  father,  whom 
it  was  possible  and  necessary  to  love.10 

Nevertheless,  the  method  adopted  certainly  was  not 
adapted  to  express  the  real  desires  of  the  Sobor,  for 
Metropolitan  Tikhon  was  not  the  person  likely  to  have 

8  The  Church  during  the  Revolution,  p.  97;  also  in  Vvedensky’s 
The  Church  and  the  Government,  p.  106. 

9  Op.  cit.,  p.  23. 

10  “Reminiscences  of  Patriarch  Tikhon,”  in  The  Way  (Put),  Sept., 
1925,  p.  117.  (In  Russian.) 


First  All-Russian  Local  Sobor  of  1917  91 

been  selected  had  the  procedure  been  that  of  a  direct 
choice  by  the  Sobor  from  among  the  three  candidates. 

The  newly  chosen  head  of  the  Russian  church  and 
its  eleventh  patriarch  was  a  man  of  great  personal 
humility;  he  received  the  deputation  which  brought 
him  the  official  announcement  of  the  supreme  dignity 
in  the  convent  enclosure  of  the  Trinity-Sergei  Mon¬ 
astery  with  a  becoming  graciousness  of  manner,  and 
in  a  convincing  mien  took  the  oath  of  office — to 
defend  the  Orthodox  church  even  by  the  sacrifice  of 
his  life. 

The  committee  of  the  Sobor  then  hurriedly  worked 
out  the  long-disused  order  of  services  of  enthronement 
of  patriarchs.  Since  the  Bolsheviki  had  not  yet  taken 
full  charge  of  the  Kremlin,  it  was,  possible  to  hold 
the  service  in  the  ancient  patriarchal  Cathedral  of 
the  Assumption,  where  the  patriarchal  throne  was  still 
preserved.  From  the  patriarchal  treasure-chests  the 
ancient  robes  were  again  taken  out — the  scepter  of 
Metropolitan  Peter,  the ,  miter,  the  white  cowl  and 
mantle  of  Patriarch  Nikon. 

The  impressive  ceremony  of  enthronement  took 
place  on  November  21,  1917.  The  immense  mass  of 
people  which  gathered  to  witness  the  historic  occa¬ 
sion  crowded  within  the  walls  of  the  Kremlin  as  well  as 
within  the  Red  Square  outside.  After  the  liturgy, 
two  chief  metropolitans  led  the  patriarch-elect  to  the 
patriarchal  throne,  while  chanting  Axios!  Axios! 
Axios!  and  robed  him  in  the  vestments  of  his  office. 
Then  the  new  patriarch  led  a  procession  around  the 
Kremlin,  sprinkling  its  walls  with  the  holy  water. 
Even  the  Red  Army  soldiers  who  stood  guard  there 
are  said  to  have  paid  respect  to  the  new  hierarch. 

A  short  account  of  the  life  of  the  man  who  was 


92  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

placed  at  the  head  of  the  Russian  church  at  the  most 
trying  period  of  its  history  would  be  in  place  here. 
According  to  the  account  of  Archpriest  A.  Rozhdest¬ 
vensky,11  Patriarch  Tikhon,  whose  secular  name  was 
Basil  Ivanovich  Belavin,  was  born  in  1866,  in  Toropets, 
in  the  government  of  Pskov.  His  father  held  the 
post  of  local  priest.  Destined  for  the  priesthood, 
he  entered  the  seminary  at  Pskov  in  1878,  and 
remained  there  for  the  next  five  years.  He  was  of 
a  deeply  religious  nature,  so  that  his  schoolmates  used 
to  call  him  “archpriest”  in  jest.  He  then  passed  on  to 
the  Petersburg  Theological  Academy,  where  his  fellow- 
students  raised  his  title  to  that  of  “patriarch.”  When 
Tikhon  really  became  patriarch,  these  men  often 
recalled^  their  prophetic  tomfoolery.  His  popularity 
among  the  fellow-students  was  deservedly  great. 

Since  all  the  higher  ecclesiastical  offices  were  reserved 
for  the  monastic  clergy,  it  was  customary  for  the  stu¬ 
dents  of  the  Academy  who  aspired  after  such  a  career 
to  take  upon  themselves  the  monastic  vow  in  the  fourth 
year  of  their  theological  studies.  But  Belavin  evidently 
had  no  such  aspirations,  for  he  graduated  from  the 
Academy  as  a  secular,  and  was  called  back  to  the  Pskov 
Seminary  as  a  teacher  of  theology,  serving  in  that 
capacity  for  three  years.  There  his  students  bore  testi¬ 
mony  to  his  gentle  ways  and  manners.  It  was  here,  in 
1891,  that  he  accepted  the  monastic  vows  and  received 
the  name  of  Tikhon.  Soon  after  the  young  hieromonk 
was  summoned  to  serve  as  inspector,  and  later  as  rector, 
of  the  seminary  at  Lublin,  in  the  government  of  Kholm, 
later  being  raised  to  the  dignity  of  bishop  of  Lublin, 
and  vicar  of  the  Kholm  eparchy.  From  this  position  he 
was  called  to  become  the  head  of  the  Russian  church  of 

11  The  Most  Holy  Tikhon,  Sophia.  (In  Russian.) 


First  All-Russian  Local  Sobor  of  1917  93 

the  North  American  continent.  His  stay  of  nine  years 
in  a  country  where  the  conditions  of  life  were 
unfamiliar  and  widely  divergent  from  those  to  which  he 
was  accustomed,  as  well  as  the  really  formidable  task  of 
superintending  the  scattered  Russian  communities  dis¬ 
tributed  not  only  over  the  length  and  breadth  of  the 
United  States,  but  over  Canada,  Alaska,  and  the  Aleu¬ 
tian  Islands  as  well,  according  to  his  own  testimony 
greatly  broadened  his  outlook  upon  life  and  served  him 
in  good  stead  later.  It  was  during  his  administration 
that  the  episcopal  see  was  removed  from  San  Francisco 
to  New  York;  and  the  recollections  of  Tikhon  are  quite 
vivid  among  his  parishioners  of  the  latter  city.  Tikhon 
returned  to  Russia  only  once  during  his  American  term 
of  office,  and  was  on  that  occasion  elevated  to  the  arch- 
episcopal  dignity.  In  1907  he  was  called  to  administer 
one  of  the  ancient  and  important  eparchies,  Yaroslavl, 
but  six  years  later  was  transferred  by  the  Holy  Synod 
to  the  see  of  Vilna,  in  Russian  Poland,  where  he  was 
faced  with  the  delicate  task  of  dealing  with  the 
numerous  Uniates  as  well  as  Roman  Catholics,  and  not 
the  least  with  the  Orthodox  Russians  who  were  filled 
with  hatred  for  the  Poles.  This  difficult  task  required 
uncommon  skill  and  tact  on  the  part  of  the  head  of  the 
church  there,  but  he  acquitted  himself  of  it  remark¬ 
ably  well.  When  the  World  War  broke  out,  Tikhon’s 
eparchy  became  a  center  of  battle.  He  was  obliged  to 
leave  the  city  and  took  refuge  in  Moscow,  later  return¬ 
ing  to  his  see  and  living  on  its  eastern  boundary  line  in 
the  town  of  Disna.  When  the  Moscow  metropolitan  of 
Rasputin  fame,  Macarius,  was  removed  by  the  Provi¬ 
sional  Government  in  1917,  Tikhon  was  selected  to  fill 
the  vacant  throne  of  this  chief  of  the  Russian  eparchies, 
and  it  was  from  this  position  that  he  was  elevated,  in 


94  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

the  same  year,  to  the  highest  dignity  within  the  gift  of 
the  Russian  church,  that  of  the  patriarch  of  Moscow 
and  of  all  Russia. 

When  the  Sobor  addressed  itself  to  the  definition  of 
the  respective  spheres  of  jurisdiction  of  the  patriarch¬ 
ate  and  the  Sobor,  two  possibilities  presented  them¬ 
selves:  either  to  endow  the  restored  patriarchate  with 
powers  similar  to  those  possessed  by  the  patriarchs 
prior  to  the  time  of  Peter  the  Great,  or  to  make  the 
synodical,  i.e.  collegiate  form  of  government,  dominant 
in  the  church.  The  former  proposal  could  be  charac¬ 
terized  as  the  more  aristocratic  and  hierarchical,  but  it 
had  the  sanction  of  tradition  and  of  historical  precedent 
on  its  side ;  the  latter  was  much  more  democratic,  since 
the  Synod  was  to  have  a  goodly  proportion  of  laymen 
among  its  membership,  but  it  looked  too  much  like 
an  innovation. 

The  final  decision  of  the  Sobor  regarding  this 
momentous  question  was  rendered  early  in  November, 
and  resulted  in  a  skillful  compromise  between  the  two 
competing  propositions.  It  was  ruled  on  November  4, 
that  “in  the  Russian  Orthodox  Church  the  supreme 
authority,  legislative,  administrative,  judicial,  and 
supervisory,  belongs  to  the  local  Sobor,  assembled  peri¬ 
odically  at  fixed  intervals,  and  consisting  of  bishops, 
clergy,  and  laymen.”  12 

This,  then,  was  a  signal  victory  for  the  supporters  of 
the  second  proposition.  Nevertheless,  the  hierarchical 
party  also  won  a  substantial  concession  in  the  second 
article,  which  ruled  that  “the  patriarchate  is  restored, 
and  the  ecclesiastical  administration  is  headed  by  a 

12  Decisions  Regarding  the  Supreme  and  Eparchial  Administration 
of  the  Orthodox  Church  by  the  Sobor  of  1917-1918,  Warsaw,  1922. 
p.  3.  (In  Russian.) 


First  All-Russian  Local  Sobor  of  1917  95 

patriarch.  3.  The  patriarch  holds  the  first  place  among 
bishops  of  equal  rank.  4.  The  patriarch,  together  with 
the  organs  of  church  administration,  is  subject  to  the 
Sobor.”  13 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  the  patriarch,  by  the 
provision  of  the  Constitution,  was  rendered  amenable 
to  the  Sobor,  and  could  by  no  means  play  an  autocratic 
role,  such  as  Russia  had  experienced  during  the  pre¬ 
vious  period  of  the  patriarchate.  He  was  really  not 
much  more  than  the  chief  executive,  entrusted  with 
“the  care  of  the  internal  and  external  welfare  of  the 
Russian  church.”  14  He  convoked  the  Sobors  and  by 
virtue  of  his  office  presided  at  their  sessions.  But  dur¬ 
ing  the  interim  between  the  meetings  of  the  Sobor,  two 
elective  bodies  were  associated  with  him  in  governing 
the  church :  the  Holy  Synod  and  the  Supreme  Ecclesi¬ 
astical  Council.  The  patriarch  served  as  president  of 
these  bodies,  and  had  a  veto  power  over  all  their  actions 
and  decisions.  His  veto  suspended  all  propositions 
which  he  opposed  till  the  decision  of  the  next  Sobor. 
Indeed,  the  patriarch  even  had  the  right  of  acting  inde¬ 
pendently  of  these  bodies,  if  in  his  judgment  the  well¬ 
being  of  the  church  demanded  such  a  course,  but  his 
actions  were  then  subject  to  the  approval  or  disap¬ 
proval  of  the  next  Sobor.  He  was  likewise  charged 
with  the  dangerous  duty  of  “making  protests  to  the 
government”  against  encroachments  or  other  inimical 
actions.  He  supervised  the  appointment  of  bishops  to 
vacant  eparchial  cathedras,  in  order  that  they  might 
be  filled  within  a  reasonable  time ;  although  he  did  not 
appoint  the  bishops,  he  had  the  right  to  advise  them 
regarding  their  personal  life  as  well  as  the  fulfillment 

18  Ibid.,  p.  3. 

1 4  Ibid.,  p.  4.  , 


96  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

of  their  episcopal  duties.  In  case  his  advice  was  dis¬ 
regarded,  he  referred  the  case  to  the  Holy  Synod;  he 
could  arbitrate  in  cases  of  personal  controversies 
between  bishops,  if  his  jurisdiction  was  voluntarily 
sought,  but  he  received  all  complaints  against  bishops, 
and  instituted  proceedings  against  them.  The  patri¬ 
arch’s  name  was  recited  at  all  liturgical  services  of  the 
church.  Besides  these  general  duties  inherent  in  his 
office  as  patriarch,  he  also  served  as  the  diocesan  bishop 
of  the  patriarchal  province,  which  comprised  the  dio¬ 
cese  of  Moscow  and  the  Stavrapigial  monasteries  of  the 
Russian  church  (i.e.  such  monasteries  as  were  directly 
subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  supreme  church 
administration) ;  but  his  duties  as  diocesan  bishop  were 
delegated  to  the  patriarch’s  locum  tenens,  who  had  the 
title  of  archbishop  of  Kolomna  and  Mozhaisk.  The 
supreme  authority  of  the  Sobor  was  likewise  preserved 
by  the  provision  that  the  patriarch,  who  was  elected  for 
life,  might  be  impeached  by  the  Sobor  for  policies  or 
acts  regarded  as  detrimental  or  destructive  of  the  vital 
interests  of  the  church,  and  in  conjunction  with  other 
Eastern  patriarchs  he  might  in  such  a  case  be  tried  and 
deprived  of  his  office.  Since  these  provisions  came  to 
have  enormous  importance,  because  of  their  direct 
bearing  upon  later  events,  it  is  best  to  give  them  in  full : 

8.  In  case  the  patriarch  should  fail  in  his  duties, 
then,  in  accordance  with  the  nature  of  the  failure,  the 
three  eldest  members  of  the  Holy  Synod,  or  members 
of  the  Supreme  Ecclesiastical  Council  of  archiepiscopal 
rank  should  make  a  brotherly  representation  to  the 
patriarch;  should  that  representation  fail  of  result, 
they  should  make  a  second  representation,  and  in  case 
this  also  is  fruitless,  they  should  adopt  further  meas¬ 
ures  in  accordance  with  article  10. 


First  All-Russian  Local  Sobor  of  1917  97 

9.  Complaints  against  the  patriarch  shall  be 
directed  to  the  Holy  Synod  through  the  eldest  hierarch 
from  the  membership  of  the  Synod. 

10.  In  case  the  patriarch  should  infringe  the  rights 
or  duties  of  his  office,  the  question  whether  his  acts 
involve  culpability  should  be  decided  by  a  joint  meet¬ 
ing  of  the  Holy  Synod  and  the  Supreme  Ecclesiastical 
Council.  His  indictment  and  trial  devolve  upon  the 
All-Russian  Sobor  of  bishops,  to  which,  as  far  as 
possible,  the  other  patriarchs  and  representatives  of 
autocephalous  churches  should  be  invited;  in  such  a 
case,  the  indictment,  as  well  as  the  condemnatory 
verdict,  requires  no  less  than  two-thirds  of  effective 
votes. 

The  two  elective  legislative  bodies  which  were  asso¬ 
ciated  with  the  patriarch  in  the  management  of  the 
government,  the  Holy  Synod  and  the  Supreme  Ecclesi¬ 
astical  Council,  divided  between  themselves  the  vari¬ 
ous  functions  appertaining  to  the  administration.  The 
Holy  Synod,  which  was  hierarchical  in  the  character 
of  its  personnel,  consisted  of  the  president-patriarch 
and  twelve  bishops:  six  were  chosen  by  the  Sobor  for 
the  term  of  three  years,  five  others  represented  the  five 
ecclesiastical  administrative  divisions  into  which  Rus¬ 
sia  was  divided  (the  Northwest,  the  Southwest,  the 
Central,  the  Eastern,  and  the  Siberian,  which  included 
North  America,  and  the  Japanese,  Chinese,  and  Per¬ 
sian  missions)  and  were  invited  in  succession  for  the 
term  of  one  year,  and  the  number  was  brought  up  to 
twelve  by  the  inclusion  in  the  group  by  the  metro¬ 
politan  of  Kiev,  who  was  granted  this  privilege  in  def¬ 
erence  to  the  historic  claims  of  his  city,  which  is  “the 
mother  of  the  Russian  cities"  and  the  original  home  of 
the  Russian  hierarchy.  Eligibility  for  election  by  the 
Sobor  was  contingent  upon  the  length  of  actual  service 


98  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

in  his  particular  episcopal  see,  which  must  be  not  less 
than  two  years.  The  functions  of  the  Holy  Synod 
related  mostly  to  the  inner  life  of  the  church.  Its 
jurisdiction  extended  over  the  matters  of  administra¬ 
tion,  doctrine,  liturgy,  priestly  as  well  as  parochial 
education,  discipline,  supervision  of  the  missionary 
enterprises,  and  censorship  of  religious  books. 

The  Supreme  Ecclesiastical  Council  was  more  demo¬ 
cratic  in  its  character,  and  besides  the  president- 
patriarch  consisted  of  fifteen  members:  three  bishops 
from  the  Holy  Synod,  selected  by  the  patriarch  or  the 
Sobor,  the  rest  being  selected  by  the  Sobor  and  drawn 
from  the  following  ranks:  five  were  selected  from 
among  the  lower  clergy  (either  presbyters,  deacons,  or 
singers),  six  were  laymen,  and  one  was  a  monk  repre¬ 
senting  the  monastic  order.  The  Council  was  elected 
“for  the  period  between  the  two  Sobors  (three  years).” 
This,  by  the  way,  is  the  only  definite  mention  of  the 
length  of  the  intervening  period  between  the  Sobors. 
Its  sphere  of  activity  concerned  mainly  the  external 
relations  of  the  church,  such  as  the  administration, 
economics,  and  finances;  business  concerns  such  as  the 
synodical  press;  direction  of  the  academies;  the  legal 
aspects  of  the  life  of  the  church,  and  similar  matters. 

But  there  were  many  matters  which  required  the 
joint  deliberations  of  the  two  bodies.  In  such  in¬ 
stances,  both  organizations  met  conjointly.  Besides, 
members  of  both  bodies  had  the  right  of  initiation 
of  any  subject,  by  presenting  it  to  the  patriarch,  who 
then  allocated  it  to  the  proper  body  for  deliberation. 
All  members  were  required  to  vote  and  to  sign  the 
decisions  of  their  respective  group.  Decisions  were 
passed  by  a  mere  majority  vote.  The  patriarch  had 


First  All-Russian  Local  Sobor  of  1917  99 

the  right  of  a  veto  and  held  the  customary  right  to 
vote  in  case  of  a  tie. 

The  diocesan  government  was  likewise  modeled  after 
this  combination  of  the  hierarchical  with  the  demo¬ 
cratic  principles.  The  legislative  body,  known  as  the 
diocesan  assembly,  was  democratically  constituted  of 
clerical  and  lay  members,  equal  in  number.  This  was  a 
deliberative,  legislative  organization.  The  bishop, 
assisted  by  a  diocesan  council  of  five,  three  of  whom 
were  priests,  was  the  executive  head  of  the  diocese,  but 
administered  his  territory  in  cooperation  with  the  dio¬ 
cesan  assembly.  In  case  of  a  disagreement,  the  bishop 
could  carry  out  his  policy  in  spite  of  the  opposition  of 
the  legislative  organ,  but  was  responsible  for  his  action 
to  the  Sobor. 

Very  remarkable,  likewise,  was  the  legislation  con¬ 
cerning  the  election  of  bishops.  The  number  of  bishops 
was  greatly  increased,  so  that  every  large  city  had  a 
bishop  of  its  own.  When  an  episcopal  vacancy 
occurred,  the  bishops  of  the  district,  or  if  there  were  no 
district  organizations,  the  Holy  Synod,  prepared  a  list 
of  candidates,  including  those  nominated  by  the  dio¬ 
cese.  After  the  publication  of  this  list  of  candidates  in 
the  diocese,  all  the  bishops  of  the  district,  as  well  as 
such  as  had  been  appointed  by  the  Holy  Synod  to  take 
part  in  the  election,  together  with  the  clergy  and  the 
laymen  of  the  diocese,  jointly  voted  for  the  nominee 
of  their  choice.  In  order  to  be  elected,  he  must  receive 
no  less  than  two-thirds  of  the  votes  cast.  The  bishop- 
elect  was  then  confirmed  by  the  Supreme  Ecclesiastical 
Council. 

Qualifications  for  the  episcopal  office  comprised  the 
following  requirements:  the  candidate  must  be  at 
least  thirty-five  years  of  age;  he  must  be  a  monk,  or 


100  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

an  unmarried  clergyman,  or  might  even  be  a  layman. 
In  the  case  of  clergymen  or  laymen,  if  the  candidate 
did  not  assume  the  monastic  vow,  he  must  at  least 
wear  monastic  garb.  The  candidate  must  likewise 
possess  a  fitting  education,  as  well  as  the  necessary 
moral  qualities.  He  was  then  elected  for  life.16 

Further  democratization  of  the  administration  of 
the  church  is  noticeable  in  the  division  of  every  dio¬ 
cese  into  parochial  districts,  locally  governed  by  paro¬ 
chial  assemblies,  consisting  of  all  the  clergy  of  the 
district,  together  with  an  equal  number  of  lay  repre¬ 
sentatives  of  the  parishes.  Each  local  parish  was  like¬ 
wise  governed  by  a  local  assembly,  and  the  members 
of  the  parish  were  definitely  registered  as  belonging  to 
that  one  unit  and  no  other;  this,  too,  was  an  innova¬ 
tion  of  considerable  importance,  and  indicated  the  new 
spirit  which  was  introduced  into  the  ecclesiastical 
administration.  It  might  be  mentioned  that  this  blend 
of  the  episcopal  with  the  presbyterian  polities  was  not 
original  with  the  Russian  church,  as  far  as  the  Eastern 
communions  were  concerned,  for  an  essentially  similar 
scheme  had  been  in  operation  in  the  Rumanian  church 
in  Transylvania  since  1868.ie 

Besides  this  really  remarkable  reconstruction  of  the 
administrative  system  of  the  church,  the  Sobor  declared 
the  independence  of  the  church  from  the  state  in  all 
religious  and  ecclesiastical  matters,  the  monastic  life 
was  newly  regulated,  and  the  Edinovertsi  were  per¬ 
mitted  to  maintain  their  own  bishops.  The  Sobor  like¬ 
wise  encouraged  preaching  in  the  congregations,  a  thing 

16  All  the  foregoing  description  of  the  duties  and  obligations  of 
the  patriarchate  and  the  other  organs  of  the  Supreme  Ecclesiastical 
Administration  is  based  upon  the  official  Decisions  already  cited. 

16  See  Seton-Watson:  “Transylvania  since  1867,”  in  The  Slavonic 
Review,  June,  1925. 


First  All-Russian  Local  Sobor  of  1917  101 

which  was  formerly  almost  entirely  neglected ; 
addressed  itself  to  the  reorganization  of  clerical  educa¬ 
tion;  and  provided  measures  for  the  support  of  the 
work  of  the  church. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  FIRST  YEARS  OF  THE  SOVIET  REGIME 

The  fears  so  freely  expressed  before  the  election  of 
the  patriarch  that  the  Sobor  might  be  dispersed  by  the 
Soviet  authorities,  or  at  least  that  its  freedom  of  action 
might  be  restricted,  proved  unfounded.  Nobody  inter¬ 
fered  with  the  election  of  the  patriarch,  and  the  author¬ 
ities  even  permitted  the  transfer  of  the  meeting  of  the 
Sobor  for  the  election  of  the  patriarch  to  the  Church  of 
the  Savior,  which  is  outside  the  walls  of  the  Kremlin. 
In  the  political  field,  the  Soviet  of  National  Commis¬ 
sars  at  first  permitted  the  completion  of  the  elections 
for  the  Constituent  Assembly,  so  that  there  was  no 
ostensible  reason  for  disturbing  the  work  which  was 
carried  on  by  the  ecclesiastical  constituent  assembly. 
At  any  rate,  no  interference  was  experienced  by  that 
body. 

But  in  December,  1917,  a  number  of  decrees  appeared 
which  could  be  regarded  as  the  beginning  of  the  new 
legal  modus  vivendi  for  the  church  and  the  state:  on 
December  4,  in  accordance  with  the  program  so  assidu¬ 
ously  propagated  before  the  new  masters  had  seized 
the  supreme  power,  a  decree  was  issued  by  which  all 
land  was  declared  a  national  landed  fund,  to  be  con¬ 
trolled  by  land  committees.  It  was  explicitly  stated 
that  the  lands  owned  by  ecclesiastical  or  monastic 
institutions  were  likewise  included  within  the  scope  of 

102 


First  Years  of  the  Soviet  Regime  103 

the  law.  Thus  the  church  lost  a  great  part  of  its 
income  overnight,  so  to  speak,  and  was  soon  to  face  an 
even  greater  loss. 

On  December  11,  the  law  regarding  the  nationaliza¬ 
tion  of  the  land  was  succeeded  by  a  decree  issued  by 
the  Commissariat  of  National  Education,  ordering  all 
schools  whatsoever  to  be  turned  over  to  that  depart¬ 
ment.  This  law  was  a  great  deal  more  drastic  than 
the  one  of  June  20,  passed  by  the  Provisional  Govern¬ 
ment:  the  latter  had  reference  only  to  parochial  schools 
and  ecclesiastical  institutions  for  teachers  which  were 
supported  from  state  funds.  The  December  law  made 
no  such  distinctions,  and  confiscated  even  the  tech¬ 
nically  professional  schools,  such  as  the  seminaries  and 
theological  academies,  irrespective  of  how  they  were 
supported,  although  many  of  them,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
were  actually  supported  by  state  funds.  Thus  the 
church  was  deprived  of  all  means  of  educating  the 
young,  even  for  the  priesthood.  Moreover,  in  the  last 
paragraph  of  the  decree  a  passing  mention  was  made  to 
the  effect  that  the  “question  of  churches  would  be 
defined  in  connection  with  the  decree  of  separation  of 
the  church  from  the  state.”  Thus  the  church  was  like¬ 
wise  given  a  warning  as  to  what  was  in  store  for  it. 

Within  a  week,  another  decree  appeared  which 
betrayed  the  radical,  uncompromising  attitude  assumed 
by  the  new  regime  toward  matters  traditionally  under 
the  control  of  the  church :  this  was  the  decree  concern¬ 
ing  civil  marriage  and  civil  birth  registration,  which 
was  published  on  December  18.  In  accordance  with 
this  legislation,  the  Russian  republic  acknowledged 
only  civil  marriages;  for  the  registration  of  births  and 
deaths  governmental  bureaus  were  established,  and 
ecclesiastical  authorities  were  instructed  to  turn  over 


104  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

to  the  government  the  recording  books  and  regis¬ 
ters  which  they  had  hitherto  kept.  Marriage  solem¬ 
nized  only  ecclesiastically  lost  its  civil  acknowledg¬ 
ment,  although  it  was  optional  whether  or  not  such 
ceremony  might  supplement  the  civil  registry.  The 
civil  divorce  completed  this  process,  for  the  jurisdic¬ 
tion  in  this  field,  formerly  chiefly  in  the  hands  of 
ecclesiastical  authorities,  was  now  put  wholly  in  the 
competence  of  the  civil  administration. 

Finally,  in  January,  1918,  shortly  before  the  publica¬ 
tion  of  the  decree  concerning  the  separation  of  the 
church  from  the  state,  a  decree  was  issued  which 
stopped  all  financial  aid  for  the  purposes  of  religious 
worship,  but  the  salaries  of  priests  and  catechists  were 
continued  till  March  1. 

On  January  23,  1918,  the  most  important  piece  of 
legislation  was  published  in  the  decree  of  separation  of 
the  church  from  the  state,  and  the  school  from  the 
church,  which  radically  changed  the  mutual  relations 
between  these  institutions,  and  caused  such  a  thorough¬ 
going  reorganization  of  the  entire  inner  as  well  as  the 
outer  life  of  the  church  of  Russia  that  it  is  difficult  to 
exaggerate  its  magnitude  or  importance.  This  momen¬ 
tous  historic  document  was  at  first  published  in  the 
papers  under  the  title  of  Freedom  of  Conscience  and  of 
Religious  Societies ; 1  but  later  it  was  incorporated  into 
the  Collected  Laws  2  under  the  caption  of  Separation  of 
the  Church  from  the  State ,  and  the  School  from  the 
Church,  and  since  then  it  has  retained  that  title.  The 
text  in  full  reads  as  follows: 

1  R.  V.  Gidulyano v:  Separation  of  the  Church  from  the  State,  3d 
ed.,  Moscow,  1926,  prints  the  official  text  of  the  document.  (In 
Russian.) 

fl  1918,  No.  18,  p.  203. 


First  Years  of  the  Soviet  Regime  105 

1.  The  church  is  separated  from  the  state. 

2.  Within  the  confines  of  the  Republic  it  is  prohib¬ 
ited  to  issue  any  local  laws  or  regulations  restricting  or 
limiting  freedom  of  conscience,  or  establishing  priv¬ 
ileges  or  preferential  rights  of  any  kind  based  upon  the 
religious  confession  of  the  citizens. 

3.  Every  citizen  may  profess  any  religion  or  none. 
All  restrictions  of  rights  connected  with  the  profession 
of  any  belief  whatsoever,  or  with  the  non-profession  of 
any  belief,  are  annulled. 

Note:  All  reference  to  citizens’  membership  in  reli¬ 
gious  groups,  or  their  non-membership,  shall  be 
removed  from  all  official  documents. 

4.  The  governmental  functions,  or  those  of  other 
publico- juridical  institutions,  shall  not  be  accompanied 
by  religious  rites  or  ceremonies. 

5.  A  free  performance  of  religious  rites  is  guaranteed 
as  long  as  it  does  not  interfere  with  public  order,  and 
is  not  accompanied  by  interference  with  the  rights  of 
citizens  of  the  Soviet  Republic.  Local  authorities  pos¬ 
sess  the  right  in  such  cases  to  adopt  all  necessary  meas¬ 
ures  to  preserve  public  order  and  safety. 

6.  No  one  may  refuse  to  perform  his  civil  duties  on 
account  of  his  religious  views. 

Exception  to  this  rule,  on  condition  that  one  civil 
duty  be  exchanged  for  another,  may  be  granted  in  each 
individual  case  by  decision  of  the  People’s  Court. 

7.  Religious  vows  and  oaths  are  abrogated. 

8.  Acts  of  civil  nature  are  registered  solely  by  the 
civil  authorities:  the  departments  for  the  registration 
of  marriages  and  births. 

9.  The  school  is  separated  from  the  church. 

Instruction  in  religious  doctrines  is  not  permitted  in 

any  governmental  and  common  schools,  nor  in  private 
teaching  institutions  where  general  subjects  are  taught. 


106  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

Citizens  may  give  or  receive  religious  instruction  in  a 
private  manner. 

10.  All  ecclesiastical  or  religious  associations  are 
subject  to  the  general  regulations  regarding  private 
associations  and  unions,  and  shall  enjoy  no  privileges 
or  subsidies,  whether  from  the  government,  or  from 
local  autonomous  or  self-governing  institutions. 

11.  Compulsory  demand  of  collections  or  dues  for 
the  support  of  ecclesiastical  or  religious  associations,  as 
well  as  measures  of  compulsion  or  punishment  adopted 
by  such  associations  in  respect  to  their  members,  are 
not  permitted. 

12.  No  ecclesiastical  or  religious  association  has  the 
right  to  possess  property. 

13.  All  properties  of  the  existing  ecclesiastical  and 
religious  associations  in  Russia  are  declared  to  form 
national  wealth.  Buildings  and  objects  specifically 
appointed  for  purposes  of  worship  shall  be  delivered, 
in  accordance  with  the  regulations  of  the  local  or  the 
central  governmental  authorities,  to  responsible  reli¬ 
gious  associations  for  their  use,  free  of  charge. 

It  is  difficult  to  visualize  quickly  and  completely  the 
tremendous  change  which  the  laconic  first  article  of  the 
decree  implied.  The  Russian  state,  since  the  days  of 
St.  Vladimir,  for  well-nigh  one  thousand  years,  down 
to  the  March  Revolution,  was  a  religiously  confessional 
state ;  its  innermost  policy  has  been  admirably  charac¬ 
terized  in  the  famous  formula  of  Count  Uvarov:  Ortho¬ 
doxy,  autocracy,  and  nationalism.  The  Orthodox 
church  has  always  been  the  chief  national  religious 
institution,  and  as  such  has  been  fostered  by  the  gov¬ 
ernment  by  special  privileges,  state  financial  support, 
a  prerogative  to  educate  the  rising  generations  of  Rus¬ 
sia  in  the  principles  of  Orthodoxy  as  well  as  autocracy, 
and  by  the  closest  administrative  ties,  for  the  head  of 


First  Years  of  the  Soviet  Regime  107 

the  Russian  state  was  also  the  divinely  appointed  head 
of  the  church  on  its  temporal  side.  It  has  already  been 
mentioned  how  resolutely  the  church  protested  against 
any  schemes  or  intentions  of  the  Provisional  Govern¬ 
ment  to  deprive  it  of  any  part  of  these  ancient  prerog¬ 
atives,  or  to  disestablish  it. 

With  the  publication  of  the  January  decree,  the  worst 
fears  of  the  church  were  realized:  the  government  of 
the  formerly  “holy  Russia”  organized  itself  on  a  strictly 
secular  basis,  and  severing  all  connections  with  any 
type  of  ecclesiastical  or  religious  communion,  leveled 
them  all  to  the  same  niveau  of  private  associations, 
possessing  no  official  standing  whatever  and  shorn  of 
all  former  privileges.  The  actual  situation,  as  a  mat¬ 
ter  of  fact,  was  even  worse,  for  there  existed  between 
the  two  bodies  a  tacit  understanding  of  irreconcilable 
opposition  amounting  to  open  hostility.  The  new 
government  had  every  reason  to  fear  the  church,  for 
that  institution  represented  the  only  functioning 
organization  within  Russia  which  was  able  to  offer 
resistance  to  the  pretensions  of  the  new  masters  of  the 
country;  moreover,  this  potential  enemy  was  imbued 
with  the  spirit  which  had  animated  the  former  tsarist 
regime,  for  the  church  survived  the  overthrow  of  that 
government  as  the  sole  incarnation  of  the  theocratic 
principle.  The  Bolsheviki,  still  uncertain  of  success  in 
their  stupendous  venture  of  attempting  to  seize  the 
reins  of  government,  and  of  fomenting  a  world  revolu¬ 
tion,  necessarily  were  obliged  to  feel  apprehensive 
regarding  the  potential  strength  of  their  ecclesiastical 
foe.  In  these  psychological  conditions  governing 
the  situation  as  it  developed  late  in  1917,  lay,  as  in 
a  nutshell,  the  entire  future  policies  of  the  two  rival 
powers. 


108  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

In  spite  of  the  danger  of  antagonizing  the  church  to 
the  point  of  irreconcilable  opposition,  the  Soviet 
authorities  boldly  stated  their  determination  to  secu¬ 
larize  the  government  in  every  sense  of  that  word.  The 
second  article  of  the  decree  was  construed  to  deprive 
the  formerly  dominant  Russian  Orthodox  Church  of  its 
unfair  privileges  and  advantages,  and  make  all  reli¬ 
gious  organizations  equal  as  far  as  the  attitude  of  the 
state  toward  them  was  concerned.  Although  it  did  not 
say  it  in  so  many  words,  yet  the  clear  implication  of  the 
legislation  was  to  make  religion  a  purely  private,  per¬ 
sonal  affair,  in  no  way  affecting  the  civil  or  legal  stand¬ 
ing  of  the  individual.  Under  the  Kerensky  govern¬ 
ment,  a  half-hearted  attempt  looking  ultimately 
toward  the  same  goal  had  been  made,  but  it  took  the 
determined,  uncompromising  attitude  of  the  Soviet 
authorities  to  put  it  into  practice  outright. 

Nevertheless,  it  would  be  a  fundamental  mistake  to 
regard  the  Soviet  government  as  atheistic  in  the  sense 
of  imposing  atheism  upon  the  whole  country.  Article 
3  unequivocally  granted  liberty  of  conscience  and  a  free 
profession  of  any  creed  or  none  at  all.  It  may  be 
remarked  here  that  the  Communist  Party  is  officially 
atheistic,  and  every  member  of  it  is  obliged  to  confess 
that  creed;  but  the  Russian  government,  in  distinction 
from  the  Communist  Party,  proclaims  itself  to  be 
entirely  extraconfessional,  secular,  i.e.  it  grants  freedom 
of  both  religious  and  anti-religious  confession  and 
propaganda.  This  paragraph  of  the  January  decree 
became  the  Magna  Charta  of  all  those  religious  com¬ 
munions  which  hitherto  had  not  possessed  full  religious 
liberty.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  in  spite  of  the 
gradual  alleviation  of  the  lot  of  the  non-Orthodox 


First  Years  of  the  Soviet  Regime  109 

communions  in  Russia,  there  had  still  existed  a  great 
deal  of  discrimination  against  them.  It  was  not  till 
now  that  the  various  “sectarians,”  of  whom  there  are, 
according  to  their  own  estimate,  some  fifteen  millions, 
as  well  as  other  Christian  and  non-Christian  com¬ 
munions,  became  fully  free.  It  is  well  to  remember 
that  formerly  religious  affiliation  had  a  great  practical 
influence  and  bearing  upon  the  career  of  the  citizen; 
the  sweeping  away  of  this  unjust  discrimination  would 
have  been  even  a  greater  boon  had  it  not  been  sup¬ 
planted  by  discrimination  based  upon  party  politics. 
As  for  a  free  confession  of  the  doctrines  and  dogmas  of 
atheism,  the  supplanted  tsarist  regime  had  made  that 
a  subject  for  the  criminal  law.  The  gain  in  liberty  in 
this  respect  amounted  to  a  full  one  hundred  percent, 
although  the  Provisional  Government  had  likewise 
granted  freedom  to  non-confessionals. 

The  former  “holy  Russia”  loudly  proclaimed  the 
close  alliance  of  its  church  and  state  by  connecting  all 
public  functions  with  religious  symbolism  or  cere¬ 
monial,  and  by  accompanying  them  by  religious  rites. 
The  new  secular  government,  logically  enough,  must 
disassociate  itself  from  all  such  connections.  Religion 
being  a  private  affair,  all  public  buildings  and  places 
must  be  free  from  its  symbolism.  Hence  the  fourth 
article,  in  consequence  of  which  all  religious  symbols 
and  icons  were  taken  out  of  all  governmental  buildings, 
schools,  railroad  stations,  and  other  public  institutions, 
and  their  places  for  the  greater  part  taken  by  pictures 
of  Lenin  and  other  Bolshevik  worthies,  whose  cult 
bears  a  close  resemblance  to  that  of  the  icons. 
Public  religious  processions  could  not  be  held  without 
their  previous  authorization  by  the  local  soviets.  Vio- 


110  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

lation  of  these  provisions  was  punishable  by  forced 
labor  up  to  three  months,  or  a  fine  up  to  three  hundred 
gold  rubles.  It  is  remarkable,  however,  to  notice  that 
the  old,  black,  two-headed  imperial  eagles  have  retained 
their  proud  position  on  the  top  of  the  Kremlin  towers, 
so  that  it  is  somewhat  incongruous  to  see  the  red  flag 
floating  over  the  administration  buildings  in  the  Krem¬ 
lin  within  easy  sight  of  the  gate-towers  topped  with 
the  black  tsarist  eagles.  The  church  was  free  to  carry 
on  its  own  proper  work  undisturbed,  provided  it  con¬ 
fined  it  to  the  buildings  intended  for  worship.  Thus 
public  religious  services  might  be  freely  performed  in 
all  churches,  their  freedom  having  been  guaranteed  by 
the  January  decree. 

With  the  separation  of  the  church  from  the  state,  the 
former  institution  necessarily  lost  certain  privileges 
which  were  highly  prized  by  its  members,  and  their  loss 
was  consequently  keenly  felt.  Thus,  for  instance,  the 
clergy  lost  their  legal  exemption  from  military  service 
as  well  as  other  privileges  which  formerly  they  pos¬ 
sessed  by  reason  of  their  clerical  calling.  This  was  the 
sense  of  the  sixth  article,  although  at  the  same  time  it 
clearly  specified  that  the  military  duty  might  be 
exchanged  for  another,  and  thus  the  clergy  were  not 
directly  forced  into  the  military  service.  Moreover, 
there  are  in  Russia  many  pacifist  sects  which  reject  war 
and  military  service  on  the  grounds  of  religious  convic¬ 
tion;  these,  too,  were  envisaged  in  the  provision.  Oaths 
required  by  courts  to  substantiate  depositions,  or 
required  upon  taking  office  or  entering  the  army,  were 
likewise  dispensed  with,  as  implying  religious  presup¬ 
position,  i.e.  calling  upon  God.  Later,  when  the  ques¬ 
tion  regarding  the  character  of  the  solemn  promise 
required  upon  entering  the  Red  army  was  raised,  the 


First  Years  of  the  Soviet  Regime  111 

ceremony  was  officially  pronounced  to  be  of  a  purely 
civil  character.4 

Further  deprivation  of  the  clergy  of  their  former 
semi-official  public  standing  concerned  the  recording 
of  births  and  registry  of  marriages,  for  the  ecclesi¬ 
astical  records  were  the  sole  official  records  of  such 
events,  and  consequently  were  of  great  importance. 
These  functions,  by  the  provisions  of  the  eighth  article, 
were  now  taken  over  by  the  state. 

The  keenly  felt  reduction  of  the  importance  of  the 
church  may  be  realized  if  one  recalls  that  in  the  old 
Russia  the  life  of  the  people  was  inextricably  inter¬ 
woven  with  the  functions  and  ministrations  of  the 
church,  because  all  the  major  events  of  an  individual’s 
life  were  closely  bound  with  the  sacraments  and  rites 
of  the  church.  This  applied  not  only  to  births,  mar¬ 
riages,  and  deaths,  but  to  innumerable  other  ministra¬ 
tions  both  of  private  and  corporate  character,  so  that 
life  normally  expressed  itself  through  religious  services 
and  rites.  All  of  this  was  greatly  diminished  now,  even 
though  not  forbidden.  At  any  rate,  all  religious  minis¬ 
tration  now  lost  its  official  character.  As  formerly  the 
matriculation  of  births,  kept  by  every  parish  priest, 
was  regarded  as  the  legal  governmental  registry,  so  now 
the  Soviet  government  by  taking  over  these  functions 
and  secularizing  them  made  itself  to  that  degree  more 
vital  to  the  life  of  an  ordinary  citizen.  All  registration 
books  of  the  various  religious  communities  were 
required  to  be  turned  over  to  the  authorities,  even 
though  commonly  this  was  not  done.  The  birth  of  a 
child  must  henceforth  be  reported  to  the  local  Soviet 
officials  and  witnessed  by  the  testimony  of  two  persons 

4  “Decision  of  the  People’s  Com.  of  Justice,”  April  22,  1922,  in 
Revolution  and  the  Church,  1-3,  1923. 


112  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

(parents,  if  so  desired).  Then  the  child  may  be  bap¬ 
tized,  if  the  parents  so  wish.  If  this  is  the  case,  the 
fact  forms  no  part  of  the  official  record  and  has  no  civil 
significance  or  importance.  The  mother  may,  within 
three  months  after  the  birth  of  the  child,  inform  the 
officials  of  the  name  of  the  true  father;  this  information 
is  then  made  known  to  the  designated  person,  and  if 
within  two  weeks  he  makes  no  protest,  his  name  is 
entered  as  that  of  the  father  of  the  child,  and  he  is 
liable  for  its  support  up  to  one-third  of  his  income.  In 
case  the  identity  of  the  father  is  not  known,  and  sev¬ 
eral  men  are  under  suspicion,  they  may  all  be  held 
responsible  for  the  maintenance  of  the  child. 

According  to  the  marriage  law  published  on  Decem¬ 
ber  20,  1917/  only  the  civil  marriage,  registered  before 
the  proper  governmental  authorities,  was  regarded  as 
binding  upon  the  parties  to  it  and  conferred  legal  pro¬ 
tection  guaranteed  by  the  laws.  A  marriage  solemnized 
with  ecclesiastical  rites  conferred  no  legal  rights  and 
entailed  no  legal  obligations  upon  those  who  contracted 
it.  Of  course,  those  who  chose  to  cohabit  without  either 
of  these  methods  of  announcing  their  marriage  were 
free  to  do  so,  and  were  subject  to  no  penalties.  But 
without  the  prescribed  registration  before  the  authori¬ 
ties,  no  such  or  any  other  marriage  entitled  the  parties 
to  any  legal  rights  guaranteed  to  those  who  complied 
with  the  regulations  of  the  law.  A  new  code  of  laws  is 
in  effect  since  January,  1927,  which  makes  provision  for 
legalization  of  marriage  even  without  the  initial  regis¬ 
tration.* 

Similarly,  all  cemeteries,  crematoria,  and  morgues 

8  Cf.  Marriage  Law ,  p.  52,  Part  I. 

0  Cf.  A.  Meyendorff:  “Soviet  Family  Law,”  in  The  Slavonic 
Review,  March,  1927. 


First  Years  of  the  Soviet  Regime  113 

passed  into  the  sole  administration  of  the  local  soviets. 
No  distinction  was  made  between  the  different  stations 
of  the  citizens  as  far  as  the  funeral  was  concerned,  and 
the  prescribed  procedure  was  in  all  cases  identical. 
Religious  services  were  permitted,  but  were  paid  for 
separately  by  the  relatives,  although  the  fees  were  stip¬ 
ulated  by  regulations.  The  rest  of  the  expenses  were 
borne  by  the  local  soviets.7 

Of  enormous  importance  was  article  9,  which  sepa¬ 
rated  the  school  from  the  church.  Again,  this  was  a 
logical  deduction  from  the  fundamental  principle  of 
secularizing  the  government,  and  it  is  easy  for  an 
American  to  understand  why  the  separation  of  the 
church  from  the  state  necessarily  implied  a  like  sepa¬ 
ration  of  the  school  from  the  church.  A  thoroughly 
secularized,  non-confessional  government  could  not 
teach  religion  in  its  schools,  for  some  one  type  of  con¬ 
fessional  instruction  would  have  to  be  selected,  which 
would  unjustly  ignore  other  types,  and  thus  nullify  the 
provision  of  liberty  of  conscience.  It  would  be  equally 
out  of  the  question  to  attempt  to  teach  all  shades  of 
religious  interpretation.  The  only  logical  solution  of 
the  problem  was  to  proceed  in  essentially  the  same 
manner  in  which  the  Soviet  decree  did.  But  when  one 
recalls  the  stormy  and  violent  opposition  of  the  church 
to  the  milder  program  of  the  Provisional  Government, 
it  then  becomes  clear  what  a  depth  of  resentment  the 
radical  action  of  the  Soviet  authorities  must  have 
stirred.  For  now  all  school  buildings,  the  parochial 
common  schools,  the  teachers’  institutes,  as  well  as  the 
technically  professional  seminaries  and  theological 
academies,  were  confiscated,  and  the  church  was 
deprived  of  all  means  of  even  training  its  own  priest- 

7  Cf.  Krasikov:  op.  cit.,  pp.  64-65. 


114  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

hood,  not  to  speak  of  the  lost  influence  over  the  masses 
of  the  common  people. 

Articles  10  to  13  were  highly  effective  blows  aimed 
at  the  disorganization  of  the  church  by  taking  away  its 
corporate  juridical  character  and  destroying  its  assured 
economic  basis.  Religion  being  reduced  to  a  private 
affair,  religious  organizations  were  pronounced  merely 
private  organizations,  such  as  any  club  for  any  kind  of 
purpose  would  be.  Moreover,  these  associations  lost 
the  right  to  own  property,  and  such  property  as  they 
possessed  hitherto  was  declared  to  belong  to  the  nation, 
i.e.  the  government.  All  subsidies,  which  in  the  good 
old  tsarist  days  amounted  to  a  matter  of  sixty  million 
rubles,  were  stopped,  and  in  accordance  with  the  law 
of  January  20,  within  a  month  all  payments  to  the 
clergy  would  cease.  How  could  the  church  effect  the 
tremendous  change  of  shifting  its  economic  basis  from 
a  state-supported  institution  to  one  voluntarily  sup¬ 
ported  by  its  members  without  being  given  several 
years  necessarily  required  for  such  a  task?  Theoret¬ 
ically,  the  measure  could  not  be  objected  to  as 
inherently  unjust,  for  a  definitely  secularized  state, 
sundered  from  the  church  so  completely  as  the  Soviet 
government  was,  could  not  be  expected  to  support  the 
whole  ecclesiastical  establishment  of  the  vast  country. 
But  the  precipitate  action  of  the  government  in  disen¬ 
dowing  the  church  on  a  month’s  notice  could  be  viewed 
in  no  other  light  than  that  of  a  willful  disregard  of  the 
tremendously  difficult  position  into  which  the  church 
was  so  suddenly  hurled,  if  not  of  a  downright  secret 
design  to  disorganize  the  ecclesiastical  machinery.  It 
was  indeed  in  just  such  a  light  that  the  action  was 
viewed  by  the  vast  majority  of  the  Russian  people 
themselves. 


First  Years  of  the  Soviet  Regime  115 

It  may  be  remarked  that  in  itself  the  loss  of  the 
thirty-three  millions  allotted  to  the  church  by  the 
Provisional  Government  (for  the  remaining  odd  thirty 
millions  were  refused  the  church  when  the  government 
took  over  the  parochial  schools  supported  from  the 
state  treasury)  could  readily  be  made  up  by  voluntary 
support,  had  there  been  time  to  institute  such  a  system. 
Counting  one  hundred  millions  of  Orthodox  member¬ 
ship — for  the  church  always  claimed  to  possess  that 
number — it  would  amount  to  thirty-three  kopeks 
(about  sixteen  cents)  a  year  per  capita  to  make  good 
the  loss  of  the  state  subsidy.  But  the  matter  was 
rendered  difficult  by  the  precipitous  action  of  the  gov¬ 
ernment  in  not  affording  the  necessary  time  to  institute 
any  other  scheme. 

The  church,  thus  completely  stripped  of  its  former 
privileges  and  its  assured  financial  support,  was  thrown 
entirely  upon  its  own  resources;  it  ceased  to  be  a  gov¬ 
ernmental  organization,  it  lost  even  its  juridical  rights 
as  well  as  all  its  property,  and  was  reduced  to  the  rank 
of  private  “associations  for  worship.”  As  in  every  coun¬ 
try  where  the  church  is  supported  solely  by  the  volun¬ 
tary  contributions  of  its  members,  the  process  of  train¬ 
ing  the  constituency  in  the  sense  of  responsibility  for 
its  maintenance  is  of  long  duration,  and  the  period  of 
educating  the  membership  in  this  sense  inevitably 
entails  upon  the  church  a  considerable  amount  of  hard¬ 
ship,  if  not  actual  suffering.  It  must  furthermore  be 
realized  that  the  country  was  absolutely  drained  of  its 
resources  and  to  all  intents  and  purposes  was  bankrupt. 
The  outlook  for  the  church,  under  these  conditions,  was 
appalling,  and  quite  rightly  so.  Nothing  but  a  real 
service  meeting  the  definite  needs  of  the  Russian  people 
could  ultimately  save  it. 


116  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

It  must  be  remembered,  further,  that  the  church  was 
not  permitted  to  levy  any  compulsory  payments  or 
church  tax  upon  its  members,  and  that  it  could  employ 
no  compulsory  means  to  enforce  support  from  them. 
It  must  gain  its  support  solely  by  voluntary  offerings 
given  freely  by  the  worshipers.  To  be  sure,  the  church 
buildings,  declared  to  be  property  of  the  nation,  were 
given  back  to  the  congregations  upon  their  complying 
with  certain  regulations  regarding  the  procedure,  and 
both  the  buildings  and  the  equipment  were  to  be  used 
by  the  congregation  free  of  charge.  Nevertheless,  the 
burden  of  providing  for  the  salary  of  the  priest  and  the 
running  expenses  were  weighing  heavily  upon  the 
shoulders  of  a  congregation  hitherto  unaccustomed  to 
any  such  impositions. 

Taken  separately  and  abstractly,  the  decree  of  Jan¬ 
uary  23,  1918,  was  not  essentially  unjust,  and  could  not 
be  said  to  constitute  a  deliberate  attempt  to  destroy  the 
church.  But  because  of  the  violent  and  abrupt  man¬ 
ner  in  which  the  old,  accustomed  order  of  things  was 
terminated,  it  was  certainly — and  it  could  not  be  other¬ 
wise  than  consciously — calculated  to  throw  the  church 
into  such  internal  disorders  and  overwhelming  difficul¬ 
ties  that  it  could  be  said  to  be  in  the  highest  degree 
devastating.  The  enmity  between  the  two1  factors 
which  had  been  in  evidence  since  the  seizure  of  power 
on  the  part  of  the  Soviet  government  now  had  a  defi¬ 
nite  basis  of  recognized  and  clearly  enunciated  griev¬ 
ances,  and  a  death  struggle  between  the  foes  was  inev¬ 
itable. 

It  may  be  remarked,  lastly,  that  the  decree  dealt  with 
the  various  provisions  in  too  generalizing  a  way,  so 
that  many  of  the  articles  were  not  clear  and  needed 
further  legislative  elucidation.  The  church  ceased  to 


First  Years  of  the  Soviet  Regime  117 

be  a  juridical  entity;  but  what,  by  a  new  legal  defini¬ 
tion,  constituted  a  parish,  or  a  local  congregation? 
What  was  the  precise  mode  in  which  the  use  of 
church  buildings  and  equipment  might  be  obtained  by 
them?  The  children  could  not  receive  religious  instruc¬ 
tion  in  school;  where  and  how  could  they  receive  it? 
All  schools,  including  the  professional  training  schools 
for  clergy — seminaries  and  theological  academies — 
were  taken  over  by  the  state:  where  was  the  church  to 
train  its  future  priesthood?  How  was  it  to  support 
these  schools,  and  how  could  it  even  possess  them,  since 
it  was  forbidden  to  possess  property?  Would  the  state 
then  provide  such  schools?  That  certainly  would  not 
be  a  likely  thing  to  expect.  All  these,  and  many  other 
problems  were,  for  the  time  being,  left  undefined,  and 
in  the  meantime  caused  indignation  and  intense  heart¬ 
burning  in  the  bosom  of  the  church  people.  It  could 
not  be  otherwise:  causes  necessarily  implying  mutual 
conflict,  and  a  desperate  one  at  that,  were  too  numer¬ 
ous  and  too  deep-seated  not  to  motivate  both  parties 
to  open  action.  The  proud  old  institution  of  the 
church,  so  highly  privileged  formerly,  could  not  accept 
the  humble  station  without  a  stiff  fight  to  retain  at 
least  something  of  its  old  standing;  the  fanatical,  doc¬ 
trinaire  zeal  of  the  believers  in  the  communistic  pan¬ 
acea,  like  all  ardent  religious  zealots,  could  not  trim 
their  policy  so  that  the  winds  would  become  somewhat 
tempered  to  the  very  closely  shorn  ecclesiastical  lamb. 
Hence,  the  necessary  result:  war. 

What,  then,  were  the  concrete  measures  adopted  by 
the  church  to  defend  itself  against  the  execution  of  the 
radical  legislation  of  the  Soviet  government?  The 
church  replied  by  open  resistance  to  the  measures,  and 


118  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

its  opposition  broke  out  even  before  the  January 
decree  was  issued.  It  will  be  recalled  that  the  decree 
nationalizing  all  property  in  Russia  was  issued  in 
December,  1917;  this  order,  of  course,  included  ecclesi¬ 
astical  property  of  all  kinds.  The  first  attempt  to  take 
over  ecclesiastical  property  occurred  when  the  govern¬ 
ment  sent  an  official  to  take  over  the  Alexandro- 
Nevsky  Monastery  in  Petrograd.  The  official  in 
charge  demanded  the  surrender  of  all  the  cash  money 
and  all  other  assets  whatsoever  to  be  taken  over  by  the 
Ministry  of  Welfare;  but  the  head  of  the  monastery 
refused  to  surrender  the  property.  His  stand  was 
approved  by  the  entire  monastic  community,  which 
voted  at  their  meeting  not  to  surrender  any  part  of  the 
property  and  to  oppose  any  attempt  on  the  part  of  the 
government  to  disperse  them.8  As  a  result  of  this,  and 
other  attempts,  to  confiscate  ecclesiastical  property, 
Patriarch  Tikhon,  acting  alone  because  the  Sobor  at 
the  time  was  not  in  session  on  account  of  the  Christmas 
holiday  recess,  issued  a  most  important  proclamation 
in  which  he  roundly  anathematized  the  authors  of  such 
an  attempt  upon  the  property  of  the  church,  as  well 
as  any  who  would  obey  it.  This  document  is  a  veritable 
declaration  of  war  on  the  part  of  the  church,  and 
because  of  its  importance  it  is  deemed  wise  to  cite  it 
in  full: 

The  humble  Tikhon, 

by  God’s  grace  patriarch  of  Moscow  and  of  all  Russia, 
to  the  beloved  in  the  Lord  hierarchs,  clergy,  and  all 
faithful  members  of  the  Russian  Orthodox  church. 

The  Lord  will  deliver  us  from  this  present  evil  world. 
(Gal.  i.  4.) 

The  Holy  Orthodox  church  of  Christ  is  at  present 

8  Cf.  Vvedensky:  op.  cit.,  pp.  120-124. 


First  Years  of  the  Soviet  Regime  119 

passing  through  difficult  times  in  the  Russian  land;  the 
open  and  secret  foes  of  the  truth  of  Christ  began  perse¬ 
cuting  that  truth,  and  are  striving  to  destroy  the  work 
of  Christ  by  sowing  everywhere  in  place  of  Christian 
love  the  seeds  of  malice,  hatred,  and  fratricidal  war¬ 
fare. 

The  commands  of  Christ  regarding  the  love  of  neigh¬ 
bor  are  forgotten  or  trampled  upon;  reports  reach  us 
daily  concerning  the  astounding  and  beastly  murders 
of  wholly  innocent  people,  and  even  of  the  sick  upon 
their  sick-beds,  who  are  guilty  perhaps  only  of  having 
fulfilled  their  duty  to  the  Fatherland,  and  of  having 
spent  all  their  strength  in  the  service  of  the  national 
welfare.  This  happens  not  only  under  cover  of  the  noc¬ 
turnal  darkness,  but  openly  in  daylight,  with  hitherto 
unheard  of  audacity  and  merciless  cruelty,  without  any 
sort  of  trial  and  despite  all  right  and  lawfulness,  and  it 
happens  in  our  days  almost  in  all  the  cities  and  villages 
of  our  country,  as  well  as  in  our  capital,  and  outlying- 
regions  (Petrograd,  Moscow,  Irkutsk,  Sevastopol,  and 
others) . 

All  this  fills  our  heart  with  a  deep  and  bitter  sorrow 
and  obliges  us  to  turn  to  such  outcasts  of  the  human 
race  with  stern  words  of  accusation  and  warning,  in 
accordance  with  the  command  of  the  holy  apostle: 
“them  that  sin  reprove  in  the  sight  of  all,  that  the  rest 
also  may  be  in  fear.”  (I  Tim.  v.  20.) 

Recall  yourselves,  ye  senseless,  and  cease  your  bloody 
deeds.  For  what  you  are  doing  is  not  only  a  cruel  deed; 
it  is  in  truth  a  satanic  act,  for  which  you  shall  suffer 
the  fire  of  Gehenna  in  the  life  to  come,  beyond  the 
grave,  and  the  terrible  curses  of  posterity  in  this  pres¬ 
ent,  earthly  life. 

By  the  authority  given  us  by  God,  we  forbid  you  to 
present  yourselves  for  the  sacraments  of  Christ,  and 
anathematize  you,  if  you  still  bear  the  name  of  Chris- 


120  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

tians,  even  if  merely  on  account  of  your  baptism  you 
still  belong  to  the  Orthodox  church. 

I  adjure  all  of  you  who  are  faithful  children  of  the 
Orthodox  church  of  Christ,  not  to  commune  with  such 
outcasts  of  the  human  race  in  any  matter  whatsoever: 
“cast  out  the  wicked  from  among  you.”  (I  Cor.  v.  13.) 

The  most  cruel  persecution  has  likewise  arisen 
against  the  holy  church  of  Christ:  the  blessed  sacra¬ 
ments,  sanctifying  the  birth  of  man  into  the  world,  or 
blessing  the  marital  union  of  the  Christian  family,  have 
been  pronounced  unnecessary  and  superfluous;  the 
holy  churches  are  subjected  either  to  destruction  by 
reason  of  the  gunfire  directed  against  them  ( e.g .  the 
holy  cathedrals  of  the  Moscow  Kremlin),  or  to  plunder 
and  sacrilegious  injury  {e.g.  the  Chapel  of  the  Savior  in 
Petrograd).  The  saintly  monasteries  revered  by  the 
people  (as  the  Alexandro-Nevsky  and  Pochaevsky 
monasteries)  are  seized  by  the  atheistic  masters  of  the 
darkness  of  this  world  and  are  declared  to  be  in  some 
manner  national  property;  schools,  supported  from 
the  resources  of  the  Orthodox  church  to  train  the  min¬ 
isters  of  churches  and  teachers  of  the  faith,  are  declared 
superfluous,  and  are  turned  either  into  training  insti¬ 
tutes  of  infidelity  or  even  directly  into  nurseries  of 
immorality. 

Property  of  monasteries  and  Orthodox  churches  is 
alienated  from  them  under  the  guise  of  being  national 
property,  but  without  any  right  and  even  without  any 
desire  to  act  in  accordance  with  the  lawful  will  of  the 
nation.  .  .  .  Finally,  the  government  which  is 

pledged  to  uphold  right  and  truth  in  Russia,  and  to 
guarantee  liberty  and  order  everywhere,  manifests  only 
the  most  unbridled  caprice  and  crassest  violence  over 
all  and  especially  in  dealing  with  the  holy  Orthodox 
church. 


First  Years  of  the  Soviet  Regime  121 

Where  are  the  limits  to  such  mockery  of  the  church 
of  Christ?  How  and  wherein  may  the  attacks  upon  it 
by  its  raging  enemies  be  stopped? 

We  appeal  to  all  of  you,  believing  and  faithful  chil¬ 
dren  of  the  church:  rise  up  in  defense  of  our  injured 
and  oppressed  holy  Mother! 

The  enemies  of  the  church  seize  rule  over  her  and 
her  property  by  force  of  death-dealing  weapons;  but 
you  rise  to  oppose  them  with  the  strength  of  your  faith, 
with  your  own  nation-wide  outcry  which  would  stop 
those  senseless  people  and  would  show  them  that  they 
have  no  right  to  call  themselves  protagonists  of  the 
people’s  welfare,  initiators  of  a  new  life  in  accordance 
with  the  national  ideal,  for  they  are  directly  against  the 
conscience  of  the  people. 

And  if  it  should  become  necessary  to  suffer  in  behalf 
of  the  cause  of  Christ,  we  invite  you,  beloved  children 
of  the  church,  to  suffer  along  with  us  in  accordance  with 
the  words  of  the  holy  apostle:  “Who  shall  separate  us 
from  the  love  of  God?  Shall  tribulation,  or  anguish, 
or  persecution  or  famine,  or  nakedness,  or  peril,  or 
sword?”  (Romans  viii.  35.) 

And  you,  brethren  hierarchs  and  clergy,  do  not  lose 
even  an  hour  in  your  spiritual  task,  and  with  fiery  zeal 
call  upon  your  members  to  defend  the  impugned  rights 
of  the  Orthodox  church;  convene  religious  gatherings; 
appeal  not  because  of  necessity,  but  take  your  place  in 
the  ranks  of  spiritual  warriors  of  your  own  free  choice, 
and  oppose  to  the  external  violence  the  force  of  your 
genuine  spirituality ;  we  then  positively  affirm  that  the 
enemies  of  the  church  of  Christ  shall  be  shamed  and 
shall  be  dispersed  by  the  might  of  the  cross  of  Christ, 
for  the  promise  of  the  divine  Cross-bearer  is  immut¬ 
able:  “I  will  build  my  church,  and  the  gates  of  hell 
shall  not  prevail  against  it.”  (Matt.  xvi.  18.) 


122  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

Tikhon,  Patriarch  of  Moscow  and  of  All  Russia 
January  19, 1918.9 

This  proclamation  was  then  read  at  the  first  meeting 
of  the  Sobor  held  after  the  Christmas  recess,  and 
received  full,  and  even  enthusiastic,  reception  and 
approval  there.  Many  were  the  speeches  in  which  vio¬ 
lent  language  was  addressed  to  the  new  authorities,  and 
the  representatives  of  the  church  pledged  themselves 
to  the  coming  struggle:  “We  shall  die  for  the  Russian 
Orthodox  Church.”  10  The  Sobor,  therefore,  adopted 
the  following  resolution,  strongly  confirming  the  proc¬ 
lamation  of  Patriarch  Tikhon: 

The  holy  Sobor  of  the  Russian  Orthodox  Church  lov¬ 
ingly  welcomes  the  proclamation  of  the  holy  patriarch 
Tikhon,  punishing  the  malicious  evil-doers  and  con¬ 
victing  the  enemies  of  the  church  of  Christ.  From  the 
elevation  of  the  patriarchal  throne  a  word  of  warn¬ 
ing  has  thundered  and  the  spiritual  sword  is  raised 
against  those  who  are  constantly  scoffing  at  the  sancti¬ 
ties  of  the  national  faith  and  conscience.  The  holy 
Sobor  bears  testimony  that  it  remains  in  the  fullest 
unanimity  with  the  father  and  intercessor  of  the  Rus¬ 
sian  church,  responds  to  his  challenge,  and  is  ready  to 
suffer  in  confessing  the  faith  of  Christ,  its  despisers  not¬ 
withstanding.  The  holy  Sobor  calls  upon  the  whole 
Russian  church  with  its  hierarchs  and  clergy  at  the 
head  to  rally  around  the  patriarch,  that  our  holy  faith 
may  not  be  reviled.11 

The  Sobor  likewise  adopted  the  report  of  its  previ¬ 
ously  appointed  committee  on  drawing  up  instructions 

0  Vvedensky:  op.  cit.,  pp.  114-116,  where  the  official  protocol  of 
the  meeting  of  the  Sobor  is  given  in  full. 

10  Ibid.,  p.  129. 

11  Ibid.,  p.  147. 


First  Years  of  the  Soviet  Regime  123 

regarding  the  mode  of  procedure  in  case  the  govern¬ 
ment  authorities  should  attempt  to  put  into  execution 
the  decree  nationalizing  the  ecclesiastical  property. 
These  instructions  were  very  definite,  and  admirably 
manifested  the  spirit  of  determined  opposition  and 
resistance  to  the  new  laws  which  actuated  the  church. 
The  main  points  were  as  follows : 

n 

1.  Not  to  surrender  anything  whatsoever  voluntar¬ 
ily  to  the  plunderers  of  the  sacred  possessions  of  the 
church,  but  to  guard  it  according  to  the  example  of 
our  pious  ancestors. 

2.  In  case  of  a  forcible  demand  by  anyone  whatso¬ 
ever  of  any  part  of  the  ecclesiastical  or  monastic  prop¬ 
erty,  the  superior  of  the  church  or  the  monastery 
should  refuse,  turning  upon  the  violators  with  appro¬ 
priate  words  of  exhortation. 

3.  The  plunderers  and  robbers  of  ecclesiastical  and 
monastic  property  whose  names  are  known  should  be 
reported  to  the  eparchial  superior,  in  order  that  in 
cases  especially  revolting  they  may  be  excommuni¬ 
cated  from  ecclesiastical  fellowship.  (The  Neo-canon 
of  St.  Gregory,  rule  3.) 

4.  In  case  a  whole  village  proves  to  be  guilty  of  sac¬ 
rilege  and  acts  of  scoffing  at  sacred  things,  the  eparchial 
superior  shall  order  all  divine  ministrations  stopped 
(with  the  exception  of  the  sacrament  of  baptism  and  of 
the  administration  to  the  sick  of  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ),  and  the  churches  closed,  until  the  guilty 
shall  manifest  signs  of  a  true  penitence  which  must 
be  accompanied  by  the  restitution  to  the  church  or 
monastery  of  everything  that  has  been  seized. 

5.  In  case  of  violence  done  to  priests,  the  same 
measures  as  those  described  in  the  previous  article 
shall  be  adopted. 

6.  Orthodox  brotherhoods  should  be  organized  with- 


124  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

out  delay  in  parish  churches  and  monasteries  for  the 
protection  of  ecclesiastical  and  monastic  property. 

7.  It  shall  become  the  duty  of  the  parochial  and 
monastic  clergy  to  exhort  the  people,  in  their  sermons 
in  the  church,  to  penitence  and  prayer,  giving  the 
explanation  of  the  current  events  from  the  Christian 
point  of  view.12 

Aside  from  adopting  these  official  instructions 
regarding  the  treatment  of  the  governmental  decree, 
various  members  of  the  Sobor  delivered  strong  con¬ 
demnatory  speeches  against  the  new  regime  in  general, 
in  which  bolshevism  was  dubbed  “satanic”  and  “anti- 
christian,”  and  the  officials  “the  servants  of  anti¬ 
christ,”  etc.  One  orator  sorrowfully  lamented:  “We 
overthrew  the  tsar  and  subjected  ourselves  to  Jews!” 
And  another  went  a  step  further,  exclaiming:  “The 
sole  means  of  salvation  for  the  Russian  nation  is  a  wise 
Orthodox  Russian  tsar!”13 

That  these  various  instructions  regarding  the  treat¬ 
ment  to  be  meted  to  the  governmental  officials  who 
came  to  take  over  the  property  of  the  church  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  the  decree  were  not  merely  theoretical,  but 
were  quite  generally  followed,  is  witnessed  by  the  vari¬ 
ous  uprisings  and  riots  of  the  people  who  mobbed  the 
officials  and  soldiers  detailed  for  such  duty.  The  Acts 
of  the  Sobor  contain  detailed  reports  of  such  occur¬ 
rences,  which  give  evidence  that  the  disturbance  some¬ 
times  attained  formidable  proportions,  as  when  several 
hundred  thousand  marched  through  the  streets  of 
Petrograd  in  a  procession — forbidden  by  the  authorities 
— remonstrating  against  the  measures  of  the  govern¬ 
ment.  Such  open  defiance  of  the  authorities  on  the 

12  Ibid.,  p.  149;  from  the  official  Acts  of  the  Sobor. 

1 3  Ibid.,  p.  159. 


First  Years  of  the  Soviet  Regime  125 

part  of  the  people  heartened  and  encouraged  the  church 
to  believe  that  it  might  rely  upon  the  common  peo¬ 
ple  for  support  in  its  policy  of  opposition,  and  led  it  to 
persevere.  The  government,  on  the  other  hand,  just 
for  that  very  reason  came  to  realize  the  dangerous 
potentialities  of  the  situation,  and  resolved  to  break  the 
power  of  its  ecclesiastical  foe  by  every  possible  means. 

It  is  easy  to  imagine  in  what  a  mood  the  Sobor  was 
likely  to  receive  the  publication  of  the  decree  of  Janu¬ 
ary  23.  The  particular  section  whose  duty  it  was  to 
bring  in  a  report  concerning  the  matter  presented  its 
recommendations,  which  were  read  by  Prince  Eugene 
Trubetskoy.  The  report,  in  part,  reads  as  follows: 

The  individuals  wielding  the  governmental  author¬ 
ity  audaciously  attempt  to  destroy  the  very  existence 
of  the  Orthodox  church.  In  order  to  realize  this 
satanic  design,  the  Soviet  of  People’s  Commissioners 
published  the  decree  concerning  the  separation  of  the 
church  from  the  state,  which  legalized  an  open  persecu¬ 
tion  not  only  of  the  Orthodox  church,  but  of  all  other 
religious  communions,  Christian  or  non-Christian.  Not 
despising  deceit,  the  enemies  of  Christ  fraudulently 
put  on  the  appearance  of  granting  by  it  religious 
liberty. 

Welcoming  all  real  extension  of  liberty  of  conscience, 
the  Sobor  at  the  same  time  points  out  that  by  the  pro¬ 
visions  of  the  said  decree  freedom  of  the  Orthodox 
church,  as  well  as  of  all  other  religious  organizations 
and  communions  in  general,  is  rendered  void.  Under 
the  pretense  of  “the  separation  of  the  church  from  the 
state,”  the  Soviet  of  People’s  Commissioners  attempts 
to  render  impossible  the  very  existence  of  the  churches, 
the  ecclesiastical  institutions,  and  the  clergy. 

Under  the  guise  of  taking  over  the  ecclesiastical 
property,  the  said  decree  aims  to  destroy  the  very 


126  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

possibility  of  divine  worship  and  ministration.  It 
declares  that  “no  ecclesiastical  or  religious  association 
has  the  right  to  possess  property/’  and  “all  property  of 
the  existing  ecclesiastical  and  religious  associations  in 
Russia  is  declared  to  be  national  wealth.”  Thereby  the 
Orthodox  churches  and  monasteries,  those  resting- 
places  of  the  relics  of  the  saints  revered  by  all  Orthodox 
people,  become  the  common  property  of  all  citizens 
irrespective  of  their  creedal  differences — of  Christians, 
Jews,  Mohammedans,  and  pagans,  and  the  holy  objects 
designated  for  the  divine  service,  i.e.  the  holy  cross, 
the  holy  gospel,  the  sacred  vessels,  the  holy  miracle- 
working  icons,  are  at  the  disposal  of  the  governmental 
authorities,  which  may  either  permit  or  not  (as  they 
wish)  their  use  by  the  parishes. 

Let  the  Russian  people  understand  that  they  (the 
authorities)  wish  to  deprive  them  of  God’s  churches 
with  their  sacred  objects!  As  soon  as  all  property  of 
the  church  is  taken  away,  it  is  not  possible  to  offer  any 
aid  to  it,  for  in  accordance  with  the  intention  of  the 
decree  everything  donated  shall  be  taken  away.  The 
support  of  monasteries,  churches,  and  the  clergy  alike 
becomes  impossible. 

But  that  is  not  all:  in  consequence  of  the  confiscation 
of  the  printing  establishments,  it  is  impossible  for  the 
church  independently  to  publish  the  holy  gospel  as  well 
as  all  other  sacred  and  liturgical  books  in  their  wonted 
purity  and  authenticity. 

In  the  same  manner,  the  decree  affects  the  pastors  of 
the  church.  Declaring  that  “no  one  may  refuse  to  per¬ 
form  his  civil  duties  on  account  of  his  religious  views,” 
it  thereby  constrains  them  to  fulfill  military  obliga¬ 
tions,  forbidden  them  by  the  83d  rule  of  the  holy 
Apostles.  At  the  same  time,  ministers  of  the  altar  are 
removed  from  educating  the  people.  The  very  teach¬ 
ing  of  the  law  of  God,  not  only  in  governmental,  but 
even  in  private  schools,  is  not  permitted;  likewise  all 


First  Years  of  the  Soviet  Regime  127 

theological  institutions  are  doomed  to  be  closed.  The 
church  is  thus  excluded  from  the  possibility  of  educat¬ 
ing  its  own  pastors. 

Declaring  that  “the  governmental  functions  or  those 
of  other  publico- juridical  institutions  shall  not  be 
accompanied  by  any  religious  rites  or  ceremonies,”  the 
decree  thereby  sacrilegiously  sunders  all  connections  of 
the  government  with  the  sanctities  of  faith. 

On  the  basis  of  all  the  above-mentioned  considera¬ 
tions,  the  holy  Sobor  declares: 

1.  The  decree  published  by  the  Soviet  of  People’s 
Commissioners  regarding  the  separation  of  the  church 
from  the  state  represents  in  itself,  under  the  guise 
of  a  law  declaring  liberty  of  conscience,  an  inimical 
attempt  upon  the  life  of  the  Orthodox  church,  and  is 
an  act  of  open  persecution. 

2.  All  participation,  either  in  the  publication  of  the 
law  so  injurious  to  the  church,  or  in  attempts  to  put  it 
into  practice,  is  not  reconcilable  with  membership  in 
the  Orthodox  church,  and  subjects  all  transgressors 
belonging  to  the  Orthodox  communion  to  the  heaviest 
penalties,  to  the  extent  of  excommunicating  them  from 
the  church  (in  accordance  with  73d  rule  of  the  holy 
Apostles,  and  the  13th  rule  of  the  Seventh  Ecumenical 
Council).14 

This  recommendation  was  then  adopted  by  the 
Sobor  and  became  the  official  answer  of  the  Russian 
church  to  the  January  decree.  The  church  was  deter¬ 
mined  to  oppose  the  decree,  or  at  least  to  disregard  it 
whenever  possible.  For  the  church,  the  law  was  not 
valid ;  its  provisions  were  regarded  as  persecution,  and 
the  church  pronounced  its  anathema  upon  all  who 
should  attempt  to  put  them  into  practice.  The  die 
wras  cast:  again  the  situation  clearly  spelled  warfare 


14  Ibid.,  pp.  177-179. 


128  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

between  the  two  forces.  Would  the  government  be 
forced  to  go  to  Canossa?  Or  would  the  church  be 
cowed  into  submission?  To  settle  questions  like  these 
all  too  often  blood  needs  be  spilled. 

After  adopting  the  resolution,  the  Sobor  on  the  same 
day  appointed  a  committee  to  draw  up  a  more  popular 
appeal  to  the  rank  and  file  of  the  church  masses;  this 
document  in  stirring  terms  called  upon  the  masses 
to  defend  the  endangered  church  against  the  attacks 
of  the  government: 

Orthodox  Christians!  Things  unheard  of  for  ages 
are  happening  in  our  holy  Russia! 

Persons  now  wielding  authority  and  calling  them¬ 
selves  People’s  Commissioners,  themselves  strangers 
to  the  Christian  faith,  and  some  of  them  to  every  other 
faith,  have  published  a  decree  (law),  which  they 
entitled  Regarding  the  Freedom  of  Conscience,  but 
which  in  fact  represents  a  complete  violation  of  the 
conscience  of  the  believers. 

In  accordance  with  that  law,  if  it  should  be  enforced, 
as  in  places  it  is  actually  being  put  into  practice,  all 
God’s  churches  with  their  sacred  objects  and  posses¬ 
sions  may  be  taken  away  from  us,  the  trimmings  from 
the  miracle-working  icons  shall  be  wrenched  off,  the 
sacred  vessels  shall  be  minted  into  money  or  otherwise 
disposed  of  asi  it  pleases  the  authorities,  the  church 
bells  shall  grow  mute.  The  holy  sacraments  shall  no 
longer  be  administered,  the  dead  shall  be  buried  with¬ 
out  the  rites  of  church  chanting,  as  was  actually  done 
in  Moscow  and  Petrograd,  and  they  shall  bury  in 
Orthodox  cemeteries  whomever  they  please.  Was 
there  ever  a  time,  since  the  conversion  of  Russia,  like 
this?  Never!  Even  the  Tartars  had  more  reverence 
for  our  holy  faith  than  our  present  lawgivers!  Until 
now  Russia  was  called  holy,  but  now  they  want  to 


First  Years  of  the  Soviet  Regime  129 

make  it  pagan.  Who  has  ever  heard  that  church  affairs 
should  be  decided  by  atheists  who  are  not  even  Rus¬ 
sians  or  Orthodox?  By  an  order,  signed  by  a  non- 
Orthodox  woman,  the  holy  Alexandro-Nevsky  Mon¬ 
astery  in  Petrograd  was  attacked,  like  an  enemy 
camp,  by  an  armed  band,  which  conducted  itself 
in  an  unheard  of  manner,  and  even  murdered  a  priest 
(Father  Peter  Skipetrov)  who  wished  to  bring  to 
reason  the  raving  people.  And  they  would  have  alto¬ 
gether  succeeded  in  seizing  the  sanctuary,  had  not  the 
common  people  protected  it  (although  they  were 
unarmed)  merely  with  their  breasts,  their  outcries, 
and  their  laments. 

Rally,  Orthodox  people,  round  your  churches  and 
pastors;  unite  yourselves,  men  and  women,  old  and 
young,  and  form  associations  for  the  defense  of  our 
inherited  sanctuaries!  Those  sanctuaries  are  your  pos¬ 
sessions.  Your  pious  ancestors,  as  well  as  yourselves, 
have  built  and  beautified  God's  churches,  and  have 
dedicated  these  possessions  to  God.  The  priests  in  the 
churches  are  only  their  spiritual  guardians,  to  whom 
these  sanctuaries  were  entrusted  for  safekeeping.  But 
the  time  has  come  when  even  you,  Orthodox  people, 
must  become  their  indefatigable  guardians  and 
defenders,  for  the  governmental  authorities  desire  to 
take  away  from  you  this  God's  property  without  even 
consulting  you  as  to  your  views  regarding  it.  Guard 
and  defend  God's  churches,  heirlooms  of  many  cen¬ 
turies,  the  most  beautiful  ornaments  of  the  Russian 
land;  do  not  permit  them  to  pass  into  the  insolent 
and  unclean  hands  of  the  unbelievers;  do  not  permit 
such  a  horrible  sacrilege  and  desecration  to  come  to 
pass! 

If  that  were  to  happen,  then  indeed  Russia,  the  holy 
and  Orthodox,  would  be  turned  into  the  land  of  the 
antichrist;  a  spiritual  desert,  wherein  death  would  be 
preferable  to  life.  Loudly  declare  to  all  who  have  for- 


130  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

gotten  God  and  conscience,  and  manifest  in  deeds  as 
well,  that  you  have  heeded  the  voice  of  your  spiritual 
Father  and  leader,  the  most  holy  patriarch  Tikhon ! 

In  a  special  proclamation  he  exhorts  you  to  follow 
him,  to  brave  sufferings  in  the  defense  of  the  sanctu¬ 
aries,  obeying  the  voice  of  the  apostle:  “It  is  granted 
you  even  to  suffer  on  behalf  of  Christ,  not  only  to 
believe  in  Him.”  (Phil.  i.  29.)  It  is  better  to  shed 
one’s  blood  to  become  worthy  of  the  martyr’s  wreath, 
than  to  permit  the  Orthodox  faith  to  be  insulted  by 
its  enemies!15 

-The  warlike,  defiant,  and  at  the  same  time  appre¬ 
hensive  mood  of  the  Sobor  may  be  judged  from  the 
fact  that  in  the  same  session  the  motion  was  made 
that  the  patriarch  should  forestall  all  possible  emergen¬ 
cies  by  appointing  a  substitute  in  his  place,  in  case  he 
himself  should  be  arrested  or  otherwise  incapacitated 
foi"  the  discharge  of  his  office.  The  suggestion  was 
approved,  and  the  Sobor  carried  this  recommendation 
to  Tikhon,  in  spite  of  the  patriarch’s  unreadiness  to 
act  on  the  suggestion  when  it  had  been  previously  pre¬ 
sented  to  him  privately.  Later,  the  central  organiza¬ 
tion  of  the  Moscow  parochial  brotherhoods  appointed 
twenty-four  of  their  members  to  serve  as  the  patriarch’s 
bodyguard.  They  served  in  two  shifts,  each  consist¬ 
ing  of  twelve  men,  and  were  instructed  to  accompany 
the  patriarch  on  all  his  journeys,  and  to  be  ever  present 
with  him;  if  any  danger  were  to  threaten  him,  they 
were  to  arouse  the  masses  instantly. 

Moreover,  when  the  newly  decreed  laws  concerning 
civil  marriage  and  divorce  came  to  be  discussed,  the 
debate  resulted  in  another  clean-cut  defiance  of  the 

16  Published  in  Church  News,  Nos.  3-4,  1918;  quoted  in  full  in 
Vvedensky,  op.  cit.,  pp.  192-93. 


First  Years  of  the  Soviet  Regime  131 

government  on  the  issue  of  obedience  to  the  laws.  The 
Sobor  finally  defined  its  position  by  declaring  that 
marriage  solemnized  by  the  rites  of  the  church  could 
not  be  annulled  by  means  of  a  divorce  granted  by  the 
civil  courts;  that  such  divorces  were  not  recognized  by 
the  church  as  actual,  and  the  whole  procedure,  from  the 
church's  point  of  view,  impugned  the  sacrament  of 
marriage;  individuals  thus  divorced,  who  would  marry 
again,  were  regarded  by  the  church  as  having  com¬ 
mitted  adultery,  a  major  sin  punishable  by  deprivation 
of  the  sacraments;  mere  registry  of  marriages  by  the 
governmental  authorities  could  not  be  a  substitute  for 
the  church's  solemnization  of  marriage,  which  is  a  sac¬ 
rament.  Thus,  for  the  Orthodox,  the  ecclesiastical 
marriage  ceremony  was  indispensable.  As  for  the 
surrender  of  the  recording  books  and  registers  of  mar¬ 
riages,  the  patriarch  gave  permission  that  the  authori¬ 
ties  be  allowed  to  make  copies  of  single  entries  or  the 
entire  contents,  but  forbade  the  surrender  of  the  books 
proper.  Thus  they  remained  in  the  keeping  of  the 
church,  despite  the  January  decree. 

From  mere  declarations,  the  church  passed  over  to 
deeds  and  to  active  mobilization  of  its  forces  in  defense 
of  its  annulled  prerogatives.  The  methods  pursued 
were  those  of1  organizing  parochial  brotherhoods,  in 
which,  in  the  course  of  time,  many  of  the  former  mon¬ 
archist  and  conservative  leaders  soon  found  ample 
scope  for  their  energies,  so  that  the  church  became  the 
place  of  refuge  for  such  individuals.  Thus,  for  instance, 
the  Moscow  Council  of  Parochial  Brotherhoods  elected 
for  its  president  the  former  ober-procuror  of  the  Holy 
Synod,  A.  D.  Samarin.  According  to  the  Instructions 
of  February  28,  sent  out  conjointly  by  the  patriarch 


132  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

and  the  Sobor,  these  organizations  need  not  call  them¬ 
selves  ecclesiastical,  in  order  to  avoid  the  provisions 
of  the  January  decree  against  such  societies,  for  by  non¬ 
profession  of  their  essentially  ecclesiastical  character 
they  sought  to  retain  their  juridical  rights.  In  cases 
of  necessity,  they  were  instructed  to  take  over  the 
property  of  the  local  church,  thus  preventing  its  being 
seized  by  the  authorities.16 

The  paragraphs  of  the  Instructions  of  February  28, 
giving  directions  concerning  cases  of  confiscation  of 
church  property,  are  especially  revealing,  and  may, 
therefore,  well  be  given  in  full: 

The  sacred  vessels  and  other  requisites  for  divine 
service  must  be  guarded  in  all  possible  ways  against 
degradation  and  alienation,  and  therefore  should  not 
be  unnecessarily  taken  out  of  their  lockers  in  churches, 
and  should  be  protected  in  such  a  manner  that  they 
may  not  easily  be  found. 

In  case  an  attempt  should  be  made  to  seize  the 
sacred  vessels  or  other  requisites  for  divine  worship,  the 
church  recording  books  and  other  property  of  the 
church,  they  are  not  to  be  surrendered  voluntarily, 
because  (a)  the  sacred  vessels  and  requisites  for 
divine  worship  are  sanctified  for  ecclesiastical  use  and 
no  layman  may  even  touch  them;  (b)  the  record¬ 
ing  books  are  indispensable  for  purely  ecclesiastical 
purposes;  if  the  secular  authorities  need  them,  they 
must  themselves  take  the  trouble  to  establish  them; 
(c)  ecclesiastical  property  belongs  to  the  holy  church, 
and  the  clergy  and  the  entire  Orthodox  population  are 
merely  its  guardians. 

In  cases  of  attack  of  plunderers  and  robbers  upon 
ecclesiastical  possessions,  the  Orthodox  people  should 
be  aroused  for  the  defense  of  the  church  by  the  ring- 

16  Cf.  the  official  document,  given  in  full  in  Vvedensky,  op.  cit., 
p.  203. 


First  Years  of  the  Soviet  Regime  133 

ing  of  bells,  or  sending  out  of  messengers,  or  by  other 
such  means.17 

Punishment  for  acts  such  as  were  forbidden  by  the 
ecclesiastical  authorities  did  not  stop  short  of  excom¬ 
munication  of  those  guilty  of  disregard  of  the  ecclesias¬ 
tical  regulations. 

Besides  these  means,  the  church  authorities  sought 
to  organize  opposition  to  the  state  authorities  by  dem¬ 
onstrations  manifested  in  numerous  processions,  which 
amounted  to  public  protest  meetings.  Parents  and 
parochial  school  authorities  were  also  organized  into 
parent-teachers’  associations,  in  order  to  exert  then- 
united  pressure  upon  the  state  officials  in  the  matter 
of  retaining  catechetical  instruction  in  schools  and 
keeping  the  parochial  schools  themselves  in  the  hands 
of  the  church.  In  fact,  these  associations  even  ante¬ 
dated  the  January  decree.  The  central  committee  of 
these  organizations  issued  a  resolution  on  the  very  day 
of  the  publication  of  the  January  decree,  by  which  they 
declared  the  prohibition  to  teach  religion  in  schools 
“an  open  violation  of  the  principle  of  autonomy  of  the 
Russian  school  .  .  .  and  a  negation  of  any  real  free¬ 
dom  of  conscience,”  for  such  a  freedom  would  give 
parents  the  right  to  decide  whether  or  not  their  children 
should  receive  religious  instruction.  Furthermore,  on 
February  11,  the  Sobor’s  section  on  religious  instruc¬ 
tion,  together  with  the  parent-teachers’  organizations, 
held  a  meeting  at  which  a  resolution  was  passed  assert¬ 
ing  that  the  parties  to  the  contract  should  under  no 
circumstances  permit  the  exclusion  of  the  catechism 
from  the  curriculum  of  the  schools. 

It  was  by  such  forms  of  activity,  as  well  as  by  ha¬ 
ranguing  public  meetings,  publication  of  pamphlets  and 

17  The  full  document  in  Vvedensky,  op.  cit.,  pp.  204-5. 


134  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

booklets,  and  similar  means  that  the  church  attempted 
to  arouse  public  opinion  against  the  anti- ecclesiastical 
measures  of  the  government,  and  thus  sought  to  compel 
a  modification  or  abrogation  of  these  measures. 

From  the  capitals,  the  organized  opposition  to  the 
measures  adopted  by  the  government  spread  through¬ 
out  the  provinces,  and  led  to  many,  in  some  instances 
serious,  conflicts  with  the  armed  forces  of  the  govern¬ 
ment.  In  Samara,  the  local  soviet  brought  the  clergy 
before  the  revolutionary  tribunal  for  obstructing  the 
January  decree;  in  Yaroslavl  the  parochial  council 
passed  a  resolution  not  to  permit  any  “outsiders”  to 
alienate  the  church  property,  and  refused  to  surrender 
the  church  registers.  Attempts  on  the  part  of  the 
authorities  to  put  the  January  decree  into  execution 
led  to  riots,  which  in  turn  called  forth  the  proclama¬ 
tion  of  martial  law  by  the  authorities.  In  Voronezh, 
the  mob  attacked  the  commissioner  detailed  to  take 
over  the  local  monastery,  and  the  riot  ended  in  his 
murder.  In  Orla,  Kharkov,  and  Tula,  the  demonstrat¬ 
ing  group  was  fired  upon,  and  in  the  last-named  place 
thirteen  persons  were  killed  and  many  others  wounded. 
In  Penza,  the  uprising  of  the  people  became  so  threat¬ 
ening  that  the  local  soviets  found  it  necessary  to  barri¬ 
cade  themselves  within  their  headquarters. 

Similar  demonstrations,  protests,  riots,  meetings, 
and  processions  were  held  in  almost  every  city  in  Rus¬ 
sia,  and  the  number  of  the  victims  of  the  repressive 
measures  adopted  by  the  authorities  soon  mounted 
up  to  hundreds.  Thus  in  the  Poshekhon  county, 
the  gubernia  of  Yaroslavl,  upward  to  one  hundred  peo¬ 
ple  were  arrested,  and  several  of  them  shot,  while  others 
were  sentenced  to  other  punishments.  The  church, 
in  reply,  proclaimed  such  sufferers  “martyrs  of  the 


First  Years  of  the  Soviet  Regime  135 

faith”  and  held  solemn  memorial  services  for  them, 
and  kept  their  names  constantly  before  the  people  as 
examples  of  spiritual  heroism.  In  turn,  these  per¬ 
sistent  outbreaks  were  energetically  repressed  by  the 
authorities,  but  the  situation  was  favorable  to  the 
committing  of  excesses  on  the  part  of  irresponsible 
mobs  of  rowdies  and  other  loose  elements  who  found 
in  it  their  opportunity  for  looting  and  murder.  It  was 
in  such  manner  that  the  metropolitan  of  Kiev,  Vladi¬ 
mir,  was  murdered  on  the  night  of  January  25.  There 
were,  of  course,  arrests  of  hierarchs,  some  of  whom 
were  cruelly  treated,  but  later  were  released  for  lack 
of  evidence  against  them.  There  existed  also,  in  some 
instances,  misunderstandings  in  the  minds  of  the 
officials  regarding  the  proper  interpretation  of  the  Jan¬ 
uary  decree;  some  actually  took  it  to  mean  an  over¬ 
throw  of  the  entire  church  ministration  and  destruction 
of  its  organization.  Such  misguided  officials  proceeded 
with  fury  to  carry  out  their  mistaken  ideas,  and  in 
consequence  spread  havoc  and  destruction  about  them 
before  they  could  be  stopped  by  superior  orders. 
Hence  it  may  be  freely  conceded  that  many  hideous 
excesses  were  committed,  even  though  both  sides  were 
parties  to  the  struggle:  the  church  assumed  a  deter¬ 
mined  attitude  of  opposition  to  the  new  authorities  and 
did  not  stop  with  mere  words;  on  the  other  hand,  the 
small  group  of  revolutionary  doctrinaires  who  had 
seized  the  supreme  power  in  Russia  were  desperately 
in  earnest  to  retain  it,  and  were  not  loath  to  follow  a 
policy  of  blood  and  iron,  if  such  a  course  bade  fair  to 
further  their  interests. 

The  note  issued  by  the  patriarch  on  March  5,  strenu¬ 
ously  protesting  against  the  disastrous  Brest-Litovsky 
treaty,  whereby  the  new  masters  of  Russia  bought 


136  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

themselves  a  respite  from  the  German  victorious 
onward  rush  at  such  a  fearful  price,  certainly  was  not 
calculated  to  allay  the  feelings  which  had  been  running 
so  high.  In  his  proclamation,  the  patriarch  rejected  in 
a  categorical  fashion  the  newly  concluded  treaty,  stat¬ 
ing  that  “the  church  cannot  bless  the  concluded  peace, 
so  dangerous  for  Russia” ;  in  this  pronouncement  Tik¬ 
hon  again  took  it  upon  himself  to  speak  for  Russia,  a 
gesture  which  the  new  government,  still  insecure  in  its 
own  hold  upon  the  country,  could  not  tolerate  or  for¬ 
give.  Proclamations  of  this  sort,  dealing  with 
matters  which  the  authorities  regarded  to  be  of  a 
purely  political  nature,  tended  to  aggravate  the  situa¬ 
tion  which  was  already  tense,  and  to  confirm  the  gov¬ 
ernmental  authorities  in  their  belief  that  the  church 
represented  the  chief  counter-revolutionary  force  in 
Russia. 

Besides  the  active  measures  of  obstruction,  or  at 
least  of  passive  resistance,  to  the  January  decree,  the 
church  attempted  to  remonstrate  with  the  new  rulers 
in  a  peaceable  way  against  what  it  regarded  as  persecu¬ 
tion.  On  March  14,  a  committee  representing  the  Mos¬ 
cow  Association  of  Parish  Councils  presented  itself  in 
the  office  of  the  Council  of  People’s  Commissioners, 
and  in  forceful  language  presented  the  grievances  of 
the  church:  the  decree  separating  the  church  from  the 
state  was  regarded  as  a  violation  of  freedom  of  con¬ 
science,  and  hence  as  persecution.  On  that  account, 
the  violent  dissatisfaction  of  the  one  hundred  million 
of  Orthodox  Russians  was  affirmed  to  be  increasing, 
and  nothing  less  than  a  change  of  the  decree  would 
appease  them.  A  later  petition  sent  to  the  People’s 
Commissioners  stated  that  in  the  view  of  the  church 
the  Russian  government  must  be  Orthodox,  and  the 


First  Years  of  the  Soviet  Regime  137 

petition  demanded  a  change  in  at  least  these  points: 
teaching  of  religion  in  schools  should  be  permitted  at 
least  as  an  elective  subject;  the  unjust  deprivation  of 
religious  organizations  of  juridical  rights  must  be 
rescinded;  the  nationalization  of  church  property,  and 
forbidding  of  subsidy  even  on  the  part  of  local  autono¬ 
mous  groups,  must  likewise  be  changed  as  being  an 
overt  denial  of  the  liberty  of  worship  granted  by  the 
January  decree.  Therefore  religious  organizations 
must  be  given  the  right  to  retain  and  use  all  the 
property  of  which  they  were  possessed  before  the 
decree  was  issued,  on  the  ground  that  such  property 
was  in  reality  the  property  of  the  Orthodox  portion  of 
the  nation,  in  whose  interests  it  was  used. 

Could  the  government  make  any  concessions?  It 
seems  quite  evident  that,  so  long  as  it  remained  faith¬ 
ful  to  its  revolutionary  program,  the  government  could 
not  alter  the  fundamental  principles  underlying  the 
decree,  namely,  freedom  of  conscience  for  all,  and 
a  complete  separation  of  the  church  from  the  state,  and 
the  school  from  the  church.  These  were  essentials 
upon  which  there  could  be  no  compromise.  Some  con¬ 
cession,  however,  could  be  granted  regarding  the 
method  by  which  these  principles  were  to  be  realized. 
But  the  items  demanded  by  the  church  either  con¬ 
cerned  the  principles — for  instance,  the  demand  that 
the  government  be  Orthodox — or  such  items  as  the 
right  to  retain  and  use  its  property,  which  could  not 
possibly  be  granted  unless  the  entire  legislation  con¬ 
cerning  the  nationalization  of  all  the  rest  of  the  private 
property  were  likewise  revoked,  which  was  unthink¬ 
able,  for  the  peasant  adherence  to  the  Soviet’s  cause 
rested  chiefly  on  that  measure.  It  must  be  remembered 
that  the  church  was  not  the  only  body  which  lost  its 


138  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

property;  the  entire  property-owning  class  was  dis¬ 
possessed  in  order  to  carry  out  the  Communist  theories 
of  the  new  masters  of  Russia,  and  to  gain  the  support 
of  the  peasant  masses.  As  for  religious  instruction  in 
schools,  the  demand  could  not  be  granted,  because  a 
non-confessional  government  was  bound  to  be  con¬ 
sistent  in  the  matter  and  was  logically  constrained  to 
keep  all  religious  instruction  out.  The  only  point  the 
government  could  yield  was  that  of  recognizing  the 
church  as  a  body  possessing  juridical  rights.  But  as 
long  as  the  church  was  regarded  as  the  most  potent 
enemy  of  the  new  government,  it  was  thought  neces¬ 
sary  to  use  all  measures  of  precaution  to  cripple  its 
potentialities  for  evil;  and  in  view  of  the  determined 
active  obstructionist  policy  of  the  church,  the  state 
authorities  were  not  in  the  mood  to  make  concessions. 

The  Sobor  closed  the  second  period  of  its  activity 
on  April  20,  when  it  adjourned  to  meet  again,  as  was 
generally  supposed,  in  the  fall.  But  it  resumed  its 
sessions  again  on  June  15,  and  this  third  period  proved 
to  be  the  last.  Among  the  first  items  of  business,  the 
Sobor  published  a  declaration  “regarding  the  measures 
called  forth  by  the  persecution  now  fallen  upon  the 
Orthodox  church.”  In  this  document,  the  member¬ 
ship  was  exhorted  to  emulate  the  example  of  the 
“martyrs”  who  had  suffered  for  the  faith,  and  a  day 
was  appointed  (January  25)  upon  which  a  nation-wide 
memorial  service  in  remembrance  of  the  heroism  and 
devotion  of  these  confessors  of  the  faith  would  be 
held;  the  Supreme  Ecclesiastical  Council  was  charged 
with  the  duty  of  collecting  all  extant  information 
regarding  the  cases  of  persecution  or  martyrdom,  and 
with  keeping  the  church  at  large  well  informed  about 


First  Years  of  the  Soviet  Regime  139 

such  instances.  The  Sobor  again  reiterated  its  rejec¬ 
tion  of  the  provisions  of  the  January  decree,  and 
ordered  that  “steps  be  taken  to  regain  all  alienated 
property  belonging  to  churches,  monasteries,  and 
ecclesiastical  institutions  and  organizations,  including 
the  buildings  of  theological  schools  and  consistories.” 
Finally,  the  Sobor  ended  by  deciding 

to  make  known  by  a  special  declaration  that  the  most 
holy  Sobor  of  the  Russian  Orthodox  Church,  headed 
by  the  most  holy  patriarch,  with  the  most  reverend 
hierarchs,  and  consisting  of  delegates  chosen  by  the 
whole  Orthodox  population,  including  in  that  number 
peasants  also,  is  the  sole,  lawful,  supreme  authority 
in  all  ecclesiastical  matters,  and  the  guardian  of  God’s 
churches,  of  the  sacred  monasteries,  and  of  all  ecclesias¬ 
tical  property.  No  one,  except  the  most  holy  Sobor 
and  authorities  appointed  by  it,  has  any  right  to 
assume  ecclesiastical  authority  or  to  make  disposition 
of  ecclesiastical  property;  so  much  the  less  does  this 
right  belong  to  people  who  profess  no  Christian  faith 
whatsoever  or  who  openly  acknowledge  themselves 
to  be  disbelievers  in  God.18 

The  Sobor,  in  consequence  of  this  attitude,  went  on 
as  if  it  had  never  heard  of  the  January  decree:  it  dis¬ 
cussed  matters  relative  to  theological  training  schools, 
parochial  schools,  landed  property,  church  printing 
establishments,  and  candle  factories  as  if  the  church 
still  possessed  the  full  direction  of  such  affairs.  It 
seemed  as  if,  so  far  as  the  church  was  concerned,  the 
new  government  had  ceased  to  exist.  Plainly,  even  he 
who  runs  may  read  the  meaning  of  the  church’s  atti¬ 
tude:  we  expect  to  fight  on! 

18  Titlinov,  op.  cit.,  p.  137. 


140  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

The  first  six  months  after  the  publication  of  the 
January  decree,  many  provisions  of  the  law  remained 
dead  letter  ones.  To  be  sure,  there  were  some  items 
which  were  put  into  practice  almost  automatically, 
or  had  already  been  practically  realized.  Thus  from 
the  beginning  the  government  never  thought  of  per¬ 
mitting  its  official  functions  to  be  accompanied  by 
religious  rites,  for  such  an  incongruous  mockery  would 
be  quite  unthinkable;  furthermore,  to  dispose  of  the 
religious  symbolism  and  icons  still  remaining  in  public 
buildings  was  a  matter  requiring  but  a  short  time  for 
accomplishment.  Similar  procedure  was  adopted 
regarding  the  annulling  of  the  governmental  subsidy 
to  the  ecclesiastical  establishments,  accomplished  by 
the  simple,  effective  expedient  of  striking  out  from  the 
state  budget  the  sum  of  thirty-three  odd  millions  of 
rubles,  which  the  Provisional  Government  still  carried, 
although  about  an  equal  sum  formerly  provided  for  the 
support  of  parochial  schools  had  already  been  liqui¬ 
dated  by  its  Ministry  of  Education.  This  did  not 
instantly  take  away  all  the  sources  of  revenue  at  the 
disposal  of  the  church,  even  though  the  subsidy  formed 
a  considerable  portion  of  the  total;  but  the  rest  of  the 
ecclesiastical  capital  was  likewise  quickly  dissipated: 
such  sums  as  were  deposited  in  banks  were  “nation¬ 
alized,”  and  the  capital  invested  in  bonds  and  stocks 
was  liquidated  by  the  decree  invalidating  such  forms 
of  capital.  The  church  and  monastic  landed  property 
was  to  a  large  extent  taken  from  its  legal  owners  by 
local  soviet  authorities,  and  the  same  was  becoming 
increasingly  the  case  in  regard  to  such  buildings,  fac¬ 
tories,  institutions,  and  other  immovable  property  of 
which  the  ecclesiastical  authorities  were  possessed. 
Nevertheless,  by  the  middle  of  1918,  the  greater  part 


First  Years  of  the  Soviet  Regime  141 

of  all  this  type  of  property  was  still  in  the  hands  of 
the  church. 

The  provisions  regarding  the  transfer  to  the  Soviet 
authorities  of  the  registry  functions  of  births  and  mar¬ 
riages,  which  were  hitherto  performed  by  the  church, 
were  more  difficult  of  fulfillment.  For  one  thing,  the 
government  was  not  prompt  in  establishing  such 
bureaus  of  registry,  and  the  church  refused  to  sur¬ 
render  its  own  records.  Hence  for  a  long  time  the  old 
practice  continued  in  vogue. 

It  was  easier  to  realize  the  provision  regarding  the 
stopping  of  religious  instruction  in  public  schools, 
because  the  requisite  action  was  of  a  negative,  rather 
than  a  positive  nature.  Nothing  more  was  necessary 
beyond  issuing  an  order  removing  this  subject  from 
the  curriculum  and  stopping  payments  to  the  cate¬ 
chists.  These  simple  expedients  almost  automatically 
accomplished  the  desired  result.  Nevertheless,  in  some 
isolated  instances  where  the  community  was  largely 
homogeneous  in  its  composition,  and  unified  in  its 
demand,  or  in  cases  where  parochial  schools  had  not 
yet  been  taken  over  by  the  government,  the  cate¬ 
chetical  instruction  persisted. 

This  state  of  affairs,  however,  was  terminated  soon 
after  the  Fifth  Convention  of  the  Soviets,  held  in 
July,  1918,  which  became  the  Constituent  Assembly 
of  the  October  Revolution.  This  convention  adopted 
the  Constitution  of  the  Russian  Soviet  Republic,  the 
thirteenth  article  of  which  reiterated  the  fundamental 
provision  of  the  January  decree,  stating:  “In  order  to 
guarantee  to  the  workers  an  actual  freedom  of  con¬ 
science,  the  church  is  separated  from  the  government, 
and  the  school  from  the  church,  and  the  liberty  of 
religious  as  well  as  anti-religious  propaganda  is 


142  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

granted  to  all  citizens.”19  Following  this  important 
constitutional  declaration,  the  People’s  Commissariat 
of  Justice,  on  August  24,  issued  Instructions,  which 
form  the  most  important  interpretation  of,  as  well  as 
supplement  to,  the  January  decree.  In  the  first  place, 
the  Instructions  specified  that  the  January  decree  com¬ 
prises  all  religious  communions  or  confessions:  the 
Orthodox,  the  Old  Ritualists,  the  Catholic  of  all  rites, 
the  Armenian-Gregorian,  the  Protestant,  as  well  as  the 
Mohammedan,  Buddhist,  and  Lamaic  confessions. 
Moreover,  all  other  religious  associations  organized  for 
any  type  of  worship,  as  well  as  such  organizations 
as  are  composed  of  members  of  one  particular  con¬ 
fession  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  on  any  benevolent 
or  educational  work  or  similar  objects,  are  all  com¬ 
prised  in  the  decree  separating  the  church  from  the 
government,  and  are  not  eligible  for  aid  or  subsidy, 
and  lose  their  juridical  rights.20  It  will  be  noticed  that 
the  latter  provision  was  directed  against  the  brother¬ 
hoods  organized  in  connection  with  parishes  and 
monasteries  mainly  for  the  purpose  of  holding  the 
church  property  in  case  attempts  for  its  confiscation 
were  made.  Sometimes  these  organizations  bore  other 
names  than  such  as  would  legally  make  them  church 
societies;  hence  the  provision  of  the  Instructions. 

The  provisions  of  the  January  decree  regarding  the 
transfer  of  the  churches  to  the  governmental  authori¬ 
ties  were  elaborated  in  the  Instructions  by  further 
detailed  pronouncements.  The  property  held  by  the 
church  at  the  time  when  the  decree  was  issued  was  to 
be  taken  over  by  the  local  Soviets  of  Workers  and 

19  Gidulyanov:  Separation  of  the  Church  from  the  Government, 
p.  29. 

20  Ibid.,  p.  73. 


First  Years  of  the  Soviet  Regime  143 

Peasants;  the  local  authorities  were  then  directed  to 
make  an  inventor^  of  such  property,  comprising  all 
articles  used  in  worship  or  ritual,  and  with  this  inven¬ 
tory  they  were  to  turn  the  entire  establishment  over  to 
the  representatives  of  the  group  of  believers  which 
had  applied  for  the  use  of  it,  from  which  time  the 
congregation  had  a  free  possession  of  the  premises. 
The  number  of  local  inhabitants  required  to  obtain 
the  use  of  church  buildings  and  equipment  was  fixed  at 
not  less  than  twenty. 

After  the  formalities  of  transfer  of  this  property  into 
the  custody  of  the  group  were  complied  with,  the 
group  then  obligated  itself  to  protect  it  as  a  trust  of 
national  property,  to  keep  everything  in  good  repair, 
and  restore,  at  its  own  expense,  anything  lost  or  worn 
out;  to  pay  the  operating  and  running  expenses,  such 
as  heating,  insurance,  and  local  taxes,  to  use  the 
equipment  solely  for  the  purposes  of  worship;  to  keep 
an  inventory  of  all  newly  acquired  property  (by 
bequest  or  transfer  from  another  church)  such  as 
did  not  belong  to  any  individual,  and  to  permit  an 
official  inspection  of  the  establishment  during  hours 
when  the  services  were  not  in  progress.  In  case  these 
conditions  were  not  strictly  observed,  the  property  im¬ 
mediately  reverted  to  the  local  soviets. 

In  the  sample  contract  published  along  with  the 
Instructions,  it  was  furthermore  specified  that  groups 
taking  over  church  property  for  purposes  of  worship 
obligated  themselves  not  to  permit  political  meetings 
hostile  to  the  government  to  be  held  in  it,  or 
speeches  by  any  individual  of  such  tendencies,  or 
the  delivery  of  sermons  directed  against  the  estab¬ 
lished  regime,  the  selling  of  anti-governmental  litera¬ 
ture,  or  ringing  of  alarm  bells  for  the  purpose  of 


144  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

arousing  the  population  and  inciting  it  against  the  gov¬ 
ernment.  “In  the  event  of  failure  to  adopt  all  measures 
in  our  power  to  fulfill  all  our  obligations  under  this 
Agreement,  we  shall  be  criminally  liable  and  shall  be 
treated  with  all  the  severity  of  the  revolutionary  law: 
and  in  such  contingencies  the  Soviet  of  Workmen- 
Peasant  Deputies  shall  have  the  right  to  cancel  this 
Agreement.”  Of  course,  any  member  of  the  group 
had  the  right  to  withdraw  at  will,  provided  he  gave 
proper  notice  of  his  intention.  But  likewise  anyone 
who  wished  to  join  the  group  had  the  right  to  sign 
the  contract. 

In  case  there  should  not  be  found  the  required 
minimum  number  of  believers  to  apply  for  a  church 
building,  the  fact  must  be  published  in  the  news¬ 
papers,  and  a  week  after  the  appearance  of  the  third 
such  notice,  it  must  be  reported  to  the  People’s  Com¬ 
missariat  of  Education,  which  would  then  make  a 
disposition  of  the  case.  The  equipment  of  the  church 
would  either  be  transferred  to  another  church,  or 
would  be  stored  in  a  special  storage  provided  for  that 
purpose. 

All  other  property  whatever,  from  which  the  church 
drew  revenue,  such  as  houses  not  used  for  worship, 
land,  factories,  candle  manufactories,  industrial  plants, 
cash  capital,  and  all  other  property  which  had  not  been 
sequestrated  hitherto,  was  ordered  immediately  to  be 
seized.  For  non-delivery  of  any  such  capital,  the 
guilty  individuals  were  subject  to  the  provisions  of 
the  criminal  law.  The  term  set  for  the  surrender  of 
all  property  was  two  months  from  the  day  of  publi¬ 
cation  of  the  Instructions. 

Regarding  the  surrender  of  the  registry  books,  the 
Instructions  ruled  that  all  such  records  kept  by  any 


First  Years  of  the  Soviet  Regime  145 

communion  or  church  must  be  surrendered  to  the 
governmental  authorities  without  delay.  The  clergy 
were  granted  the  right  to  copy  anything  needed  out  of 
the  books,  but  only  after  the  originals  had  been 
surrendered. 

Religious  processions,  or  performances  of  any  reli¬ 
gious  ceremony  in  public,  were  permitted  only  after  the 
application  for  the  holding  of  such  public  meetings  had 
been  approved  by  the  local  authorities.  It  was  further¬ 
more  specified  that  all  monuments  or  tablets  found  in 
churches,  commemorating  the  glories  of  the  former 
tsarist  regime,  must  be  removed  as  “insulting  the  revo¬ 
lutionary  sensibilities  of  the  working  masses.” 

Finally,  the  Instructions  amplified  the  provisions  of 
the  January  decree  regarding  the  teaching  of  the 
catechism  by  further  details  as  follows: 

In  view  of  the  separation  of  the  school  from  the 
church,  instruction  in  any  religious  creed  must  in  no 
case  be  admitted  in  any  state,  public,  or  private  educa¬ 
tional  institution,  with  the  exception  of  purely  theo¬ 
logical  establishments. 

All  credits  voted  for  religious  instruction  in  schools 
shall  be  immediately  stopped,  and  teachers  of  religion 
shall  be  deprived  of  maintenance. 

No  state  or  other  publico- juridical  institution  shall 
have  the  right  to  issue  any  money  to  instructors  of 
religion  either  for  the  present  time  or  due  them  since 
the  month  of  January,  1918. 

The  buildings  of  theological  educational  establish¬ 
ments  of  all  confessions,  as  well  as  of  the  parochial 
schools,  shall  be  turned  over,  as  national  property,  to 
the  local  Soviet  of  Workmen-Peasant  Deputies,  or  the 
People’s  Commissariat  of  Education. 

Note:  The  Soviets  of  Workmen-Peasant  Deputies 
imy  lease  or  grant  such  buildings  for  the  purpose  of 


146  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

establishing  in  them  special  training  establishments  of 
any  religious  creed,  on  the  general  conditions  appli¬ 
cable  to  all  citizens,  and  with  the  knowledge  of  the 
People’s  Commissariat  of  Education.21 

Shortly  after  the  publication  of  this  supplementary 
legislation  regarding  the  concrete  methods  of  realiza¬ 
tion  of  the  January  decree,  the  Sobor  of  the  Russian 
Orthodox  Church,  which  had  been  in  session  since 
August  15,  1917,  was  dissolved  “on  account  of  lack  of 
funds,”  without  completing  its  work.  It  was  implied  in 
some  of  the  legislation  that  the  next  Sobor  was  to  be 
held  within  three  years,  i.e.  in  1921,  but  this  was  not 
specifically  and  formally  decreed.  In  the  meantime, 
the  patriarch  with  his  two  auxiliary  governing  bodies 
was  left  to  face  the  increasingly  difficult  situation 
alone. 

2 1  This  important  document  was  published  in  the  Izvestiya  of  Aug. 
30,  and  is  dated  Aug.  24,  1918;  cf.  the  full  text  in  Gidulyanov,  op. 
cit.}  pp.  622-23. 


CHAPTER  VI 


THE  SOVIET  ECCLESIASTICAL  LEGISLATION 

The  initial  fundamental  legislation  was  followed,  in 
the  course  of  time,  by  a  mass  of  supplementary  and 
additional  edicts  and  amendments  which  adjusted  the 
Soviet  legislation  to  the  needs  of  the  emerging  prob¬ 
lems.  The  details  of  this  mass  are  of  a  complicated 
nature,  and  no  attempt  can  be  made  in  a  work  of  this 
character  to  present  them  fully.  But  an  acquaintance 
with  the  general  outline  of  the  subject  is  absolutely 
necessary  for  a  proper  understanding  of  the  situation 
with  which  the  church  was  dealing,  and  with  the 
temper  which  animated  the  government.  Disregarding 
the  fact  that  chronologically  some  of  this  matter  is 
ahead  of  the  period  reached  by  the  rest  of  the  story, 
an  attempt  will  be  made  to  present  a  review  of  the 
legislation  up  to  date. 

Both  the  January  decree  and  the  Constitution 
definitely  and  explicitly  granted  freedom  of  conscience, 
worship,  and  propaganda  of  religious  as  well  as 
atheistic  creeds.  Later  pronouncements  amplified  this 
provision  in  points  which  needed  further  elucidation. 
Church  services,  as  well  as  sermons,  could  be  freely 
held  in  stated  places  of  worship  without  any  previous 
censorship,  provided  they  were  of  an  exclusively 
religious  character.1  The  same  applied  to  prayer 

1  Instruction  of  the  S.  C.  E.  C.,  June  13,  1921. 

147 


148  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

meetings,  as  well  as  other  meetings  of  a  religious  char¬ 
acter  held  in  private  homes. 

Like  the  French  Law  of  Separation  of  1905,  which 
ordered  the  creation  of  associationes  cultuelles  to  which 
alone  the  state  was  willing  to  entrust  the  free  use  of 
church  buildings,  the  Soviet  authorities,  possibly  in 
conscious  imitation  of  the  French  model,  also  refused 
to  deal  with  the  hierarchy  of  the  Russian  church,  for 
the  latter  had  been  deprived  of  its  juridical  character, 
and  stipulated  that  the  only  legal  trustees  it  would 
acknowledge  were  lay  representatives  of  the  local 
groups  of  believers.  Their  number  was  fixed  at  twenty. 
In  localities  where  there  were  less  than  twenty  to  apply 
for  the  use  of  the  church,  and  even  where  there  were 
twenty  or  more  but  where  no  church  building  existed, 
the  groups  which  existed,  whatever  their  number, 
could  meet  for  religious  services  in  private  homes,  but 
were  obliged  to  report  the  place  and  time  of  every  such 
meeting  to  the  local  authorities.  In  case  at  least 
twenty  applied  for  the  use  of  the  church  in  any  given 
locality  where  one  existed,  after  complying  with  the 
requisite  regulations,  the  congregation  could  use  such 
a  church  for  its  religious  services  at  any  time  without 
previously  reporting  them  to  the  authorities.  When 
any  of  the  original  signatories  died  or  moved  away, 
the  full  quota  was  maintained  by  recruiting  the  neces¬ 
sary  quorum  of  members  from  among  the  rest  of  the 
congregation.  The  above-named  conditions  regarding 
the  different  kinds  of  religious  organizations  were  fin¬ 
ally  defined  by  assigning  a  different  legal  terminology 
to  them:  a  “group  of  believers”  denoted  an  organiza¬ 
tion  comprising  at  least  twenty  trustees  and  any 
number  of  other  members,  which  by  complying  with 
the  terms  of  the  governmental  contract  for  a  free  use 


The  Soviet  Ecclesiastical  Legislation  149 

of  church  buildings,  conducted  its  services  in  a  church 
of  their  locality  thus  assigned  them;  a  “religious 
society”  was  defined  in  1924  to  consist  of  no  less  than 
fifty  members,  and  must  possess  a  constitution 
approved  by  the  government ;  it  need  not,  in  such  case, 
meet  in  a  stated  church  building,  but  might  hold  its 
services  in  private  homes,  without  being  obliged  to 
report  each  separate  meeting  to  the  authorities.2 

The  conditions  of  the  contract  into  which  each  con¬ 
gregation  had  to  enter  before  the  government  would 
entrust  it  the  church  building  and  its  equipment  were 
specified  by  the  People’s  Commissariat  of  Justice. 
These  have  already  been  described  in  the  previous 
chapter,  and  hence  need  not  be  repeated  here. 

This  legislation,  which  threw  the  power  into  the 
hands  of  laymen,  had  important  consequences  in  the 
democratization  of  the  parish  organizations.  The  trus¬ 
tees  called  and  dismissed  the  priest,  who  was  elected  by 
the  congregation,  while  the  episcopate  was  restricted  to 
a  mere  approval  and  installation  of  the  priest-elect  in 
the  parish  which  called  him.  Practically,  the  episco¬ 
pate  found  it  advisable  to  comply  with  the  wish  of  the 
congregation  in  the  majority  of  instances.  But  the 
system  was  attended  with  the  besetting  evils  of  all 
“democratic”  organizations,  in  so  far  that  the  priest 
held  his  post  at  the  will  of  the  congregation,  and  was 
therefore  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  gaining  the  favor 
of  his  people;  and  a  zealous  discharge  of  official  duties 
is  not  always  the  chief  means  to  that  end,  as  many 
an  American  minister  well  knows.  He  was  likewise  to 
a  considerable  extent  dependent  upon  the  congrega¬ 
tion  for  the  general  policy  of  the  conduct  of  church 

3  Decision  of  the  fifth  section  of  the  People’s  Commissariat  of 
Justice,  July  28,  1924. 


150  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

affairs.  Thus,  for  instance,  during  the  period  of  the 
rise  of  the  Living  Church ,  many  priests  found  them¬ 
selves  ousted  by  their  parochial  councils  for  sympathiz¬ 
ing  with  the  movement,  for  it  lay  predominantly  in  the 
hands  of  the  lay  trustees  to  determine  whether  the 
congregation  should  throw  its  lot  with  the  new 
“reforming”  movement,  or  remain  loyal  to  the  patri¬ 
archal  party. 

But,  on  the  same  ground,  the  trustees  of  the  con¬ 
gregation  alone  were  responsible  to  the  governmental 
authorities  for  the  conduct  of  church  affairs,  while 
the  priest  serving  the  charge  was  not  required  to  be 
registered,  for  the  government  would  hold  the  group 
rather  than  the  priest  responsible  for  any  occurrence 
regarded  by  it  as  of  a  hostile  or  detrimental  character.* 

It  should  further  be  added  in  treating  the  subject 
that  churches  of  historical,  artistic,  or  archeological 
value  were  transferred  to  the  care  of  the  Museum  sec¬ 
tion  of  the  Commissariat  of  Education,  and  turned  into 
public  museums.  In  case  no  one  cared  to  apply  for 
the  use  of  a  local  church  (as  actually  happened  in 
cases  where  the  church  at  the  time  was  in  serious  dis¬ 
repair,  and  the  congregation  knew  it  would  be  expected 
to  put  it  in  order  at  its  own  expense),  or  the  required 
quota  of  trustees  could  not  be  reached,  the  Commis¬ 
sariat  of  Education  was  free  to  secularize  such  build¬ 
ings  for  any  other  purpose  deemed  needful.  Further¬ 
more,  any  new  churches  that  might  be  erected  since 
the  promulgation  of  the  decree  were  likewise  subject 
to  the  provisions  here  described,  and  were  not 
acknowledged  as  the  property  of  the  congregation 
which  built  them,  i.e .  it  was  specified  that  such 

8  Fifth  section  of  the  People’s  Commissariat  of  Justice,  No.  21973, 
Aug.  16,  1924. 


The  Soviet  Ecclesiastical  Legislation  151 

churches  were  let  out  for  use  only,  while  the  title 
was  vested  in  the  government.  The  prohibition 
against  the  use  of  churches  without  governmental  per¬ 
mission  extended  even  to  domestic  chapels,  such  as 
jail,  hospital,  and  almshouse  chapels. 

As  far  as  the  working  of  these  laws  regarding  the  use 
of  church  edifices  is  concerned,  an  idea  of  it  may  be 
gained  from  the  situation  at  present  obtaining  in 
Moscow.  Out  of  more  than  four  hundred  and  sixty 
large  Orthodox  churches  (not  counting  the  chapels 
attached  to  private  houses  or  benevolent  institutions) 
a  great  majority  are  used  for  purposes  of  worship. 
A  small  number,  for  which  the  requisite  number  of 
petitioners  had  not  applied,  and  all  house  chapels,  were 
closed.  Some  of  these  abandoned  buildings  were  taken 
over  by  the  municipality  to  serve  other  purposes,  such 
as  clubs,  moving-picture  theaters,  etc.  Some  of  the 
most  famous  cathedrals,  as  for  instance  those  ancient 
sanctuaries  found  within  the  enclosure  of  the  Kremlin, 
the  official  seat  of  the  Soviet  government,  such  as  the 
Uspensky  and  Arkhangelsky  cathedrals,  were  turned 
into  national  museums,  although  on  occasion  special 
services  may  be  held  in  them.  It  may  be  of  interest  to 
remark  that  the  government  undertook  a  very  thorough 
and  extensive  restoration  of  the  interior  of  these  his¬ 
torically  famous  shrines,  the  burial  places  of  the  Rus¬ 
sian  tsars,  and  by  wiping  off  the  surface  layer  of  mural 
paintings,  original  frescoes  of  remarkable  workman¬ 
ship  were  restored.  Hence  these  historically  important 
memorials  of  former  Russian  culture  were  thus  pre¬ 
served  for  future  generations  by  the  care  of  the  Soviet 
government.  That  weirdly  grotesque  edifice  on  the 
Red  Square,  “the  dream  of  a  diseased  imagination,”  as 
it  was  called,  the  Cathedral  of  Basil  the  Blessed,  is  like- 


152  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

wise  undergoing  very  extensive  exterior  and  interior 
repairs,  and  has  been  turned  exclusively  into  a  national 
historical  museum.  The  most  beautiful  cathedral  in 
Moscow,  the  Church  of  Christ  the  Savior,  is  used 
for  regular  church  services,  although  on  week-days  it 
is  open  to  the  general  public  upon  payment  of  a  small 
admission  fee. 

The  second  important  legislative  enactment  of  the 
January  decree  separated  the  school  from  the  church, 
but  did  not  specify,  at  that  time,  the  exact  conditions 
under  which  religious  instruction  of  children  or  adults 
could  be  legally  imparted.  The  amplification  of  this 
provision  was  issued  in  1922/  and  specified: 

Instruction  in  matters  of  faith  of  persons  who  have 
not  reached  their  eighteenth  year  of  age  is  not  per¬ 
mitted.  Persons  above  eighteen  years  of  age  may  be 
instructed  in  special  theological  courses  with  the  aim 
of  preparing  them  for  the  priesthood,  but  on  the  con¬ 
dition  that  the  curriculum  of  such  courses  be  limited 
to  specifically  theological  subjects.  It  is  likewise  per¬ 
mitted  to  hold  separate  lectures,  discussions,  or  read¬ 
ing  courses  dealing  with  confessional  matters  for  per¬ 
sons  above  eighteen  years  of  age,  provided  that  such 
meetings  do  not  acquire  the  character  of  a  systematic 
scholastic  method  of  instruction. 

The  growing  generation  must  be  kept  from  receiving 
a  systematic  religious  training.  The  intent  of  this 
legislation  seems  fairly  clear;  the  younger  generation 
must  grow  up  without  a  definite,  organized,  religious 
instruction,  and  as  far  as  possible  shall  receive  a 
secular  training  which,  if  it  is  not  formally  anti- 
religious,  in  the  sense  that  specific  courses  in  atheism 
are  not  offered,  yet  is  in  a  large  number  of  cases  and 

4  Ruling  of  the  A.  C.  E.  C.,  June  13,  1922. 


The  Soviet  Ecclesiastical  Legislation  153 

to  a  large  extent  motivated  by  anti-religious  purposes, 
and  is  at  all  events  non-religious.  Besides,  the  Com¬ 
munist  Party,  as  well  as  other  definitely  atheistic 
organizations,  are  free  to  instruct  the  youth  in 
definitely  and  systematically  organized  manner  in  the 
tenets  and  dogmas  of  atheism.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  this  provision  is  the  most  unfair!  enactment  of 
the  entire  range  of  religious  regulations  of  the  Soviet 
legislation,  and  is  enormously  harmful  in  its  results  and 
working.  This  single  provision,  considered  apart  from 
all  other  measures  calculated  to  multiply  the  ranks  of 
the  atheistic  organizations,  and  correspondingly  to 
nullify  and  obviate  the  influence  of  the  church,  must 
be  regarded  as  the  most  pernicious,  as  well  as  the  most 
efficient  and  effective,  means  of  gradually  substituting 
the  anti-religious  point  of  view  among  the  great  masses 
of  the  Russian  people  for  the  religious  one  now  pre¬ 
vailing.  Without  doubt,  there  are  elements  of  super¬ 
stition  and  magic  in  the  religious  concepts  of  the  Rus¬ 
sian  masses,  and  those  elements  ought  to  be  swept 
away;  if  the  provisions  of  the  governmental  educa¬ 
tional  system  accomplish  an  improvement  along  this 
line,  they  will  do  a  praiseworthy  piece  of  work.  But 
the  provisions  forbid  all  specifically  religious  instruc¬ 
tion  under  conditions  of  regularly  organized  class- 
work,  and  to  that  extent  they  nullify  the  loudly  pro¬ 
claimed  principle  of  freedom  of  religious  belief  and 
propaganda. 

It  should  not  be  omitted,  however,  that  the  prohibi¬ 
tion  of  religious  instruction  of  children  and  youth 
under  eighteen  years  of  age  is  not  absolute.  Later 
legislation  specified  that  children  in  groups  of  three  or 
less,  whether  they  belong  to  the  same  family  or  not, 
may  receive  religious  instruction  either  by  their  parents 


154  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

or  by  another  person,  and  this  instruction  may  be  given 
either  in  the  home  of  the  children  or  of  the  teacher. 
It  cannot,  however,  be  given  in  schools  or  in  church 
buildings.  The  teachers  need  not  be  registered  with 
the  governmental  authorities,  for  the  instruction  is 
unofficial,  and  is  treated  as  a  part  of  the  activity  of  the 
congregation.6 

There  seems  to  be  a  strict  uniformity  in  the  applica¬ 
tion  of  this  principle  to  all  religious  communities,  and 
its  strict  observance  forms  probably  the  harshest  and 
the  most  galling  enactment  laid  upon  them.  It  is 
rumored  rather  widely  that  the  sectarians,  in  many 
instances,  do  not  suffer  any  great  curtailment  of  their 
work  of  religious  education  of  the  young,  in  spite  of 
the  law.  In  other  words,  the  law  is  being  “admin¬ 
istered.”  That  may  very  well  be  true,  for  much  of 
the  ecclesiastical  legislation  was  expressly  designed 
to  break  the  power  of  the  dominant  Orthodox  church, 
while  the  attitude  of  the  government  toward  the 
formerly  oppressed  sectarian  communions,  especially 
toward  those  which  profess  the  tenets  of  Communism, 
may  be  regarded  as  distinctly  less  hostile,  and  in  the 
latter  case  even  to  a  certain  extent  friendly;  the 
administration  of  the  law,  of  course,  is  in  the  hands  of 
the  local  authorities,  and  as  everywhere  else,  there  is 
always  room  for  a  certain  amount  of  favoritism.  But 
against  this  may  be  urged  the  positive  official  pro¬ 
nouncement  in  the  case  of  catechetical  instruction 
required  (by  custom)  in  the  Lutheran  churches,  of  all 
young  people  in  preparation  for  joining  the  church  by 
confirmation;  when  a  certain  particular  case  of  this 
type  was  appealed  for  official  adjudication,  it  was 

6  Instruction  of  the  fifth  section  of  the  Commissariat  of  Justice, 
Sept.  14,  1924. 


The  Soviet  Ecclesiastical  Legislation  155 

decided  that  Lutherans  have  the  right  to  catechize  their 
children  privately,  in  groups  of  three  or  less,  but  not 
under  auspices  which  would  resemble  organized  school 
instruction.6  It  may  furthermore  be  mentioned  in 
this  connection  that  the  age  limit  of  eighteen  years  has 
been  lowered,  in  the  case  of  the  Mohammedans,  to 
sixteen  years;  this  provision  is  officially  defended  on 
the  ground  that  the  Mohammedans,  comprising  pre¬ 
dominantly  Asiatic  peoples,  regard  manhood  to  have 
been  reached  at  the  age  of  sixteen,  rather  than  at 
eighteen,  as  is  the  case  with  the  slower-maturing  white 
race.  It  is  thus  claimed  that  in  principle  no  injustice 
has  been  done  to  the  Russian  youth  by  lowering  the 
age  limit  of  the  Mohammedans. 

In  an  interview  with  Smidovich,  in  charge  of  the 
department  of  ecclesiastical  affairs,  I  raised  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  the  apparent  injustice  of  granting  the  anti- 
religious  organizations  freedom  of  systematic  instruc¬ 
tion  and  propaganda  of  their  dogmas,  but  denying  the 
same  right  to  the  religious  bodies.  His  answer  was 
interesting:  he  denied  that  to  be  the  case,  and  pointed 
out  that  each  religious  service  held  in  churches  on 
Sunday  and  other  holy  days  is  to  be  regarded  as 
possessing  the  value  of  religious  instruction,  and  since 
children  and  youth  under  eighteen  have  a  free  access 
to  these  services,  they  were  to  be  considered  as  receiv¬ 
ing  religious  instruction.  This  is,  to  be  sure,  a  palpable 
evasion  of  the  real  problem;  nevertheless,  there  is  a 
certain  amount  of  truth  in  it,  which,  as  far  as  it  appears, 
has  been  hitherto  almost  totally  neglected  by  the 
churches.  The  ordinary  liturgical  service  cannot  be 
said  to  contain  much  in  the  nature  of  religious  in- 

8  Fifth  section  of  the  People’s  Commissariat  of  Justice,  Sept.  29, 
1924;  quoted  in  Gidulyanov,  op.  cit.,  p.  374. 


156  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

struction,  in  the  narrower  sense  of  that  word,  and  it 
is  greatly  to  be  desired  that  the  services  be  made  con¬ 
tributory  toward  that  end;  but  this  devout  desire  and 
well-meant  advice  has  but  little  chance  of  succeeding  in 
the  face  of  the  intense  conservatism  of  the  church  and 
the  rigidity  of  form  so  tenaciously  upheld;  on  the 
whole,  it  would  be  inexcusably  optimistic  to  expect  any 
extensive  changes  to  be  introduced  into  the  services. 
Smidovich,  of  course,  may  well  be  presumed  to  be  as 
conversant  with  the  fact  of  a  rather  doubtful  value  of 
an  ordinary  church  service  in  the  matter  of  actual 
“religious  instruction”  of  the  young  as  any  one  else. 

Regarding  the  problem  of  educating  the  candidates 
for  priesthood,  it  must  be  recalled  that  all  schools, 
even  the  specifically  and  professionally  theological,  had 
been  “nationalized”  as  early  as  December,  1917,  so 
that  the  church  was  deprived  of  the  very  possibility  of 
carrying  on  the  work.  Furthermore,  the  religious 
presses  of  the  country  were  likewise  “nationalized,”  so 
that  the  church  very  soon  felt  an  acute  lack  of  litera¬ 
ture  of  all  kinds.  It  is  difficult  to  imagine  the  dis¬ 
organization  necessarily  brought  about  by  this  circum¬ 
stance.  At  first,  nothing  could  be  done  to  remedy  the 
situation,  although  the  church  soon  experienced  a  great 
lack  of  young  priests.  The  government  finally  settled 
the  problem  in  the  following  manner: 

As  to  the  question  of  opening  theological  courses,  the 
fifth  section  of  the  People’s  Commissariat  of  Justice 
deems  it  necessary,  in  order  to  prevent  all  possible  mis¬ 
use  of  it,  to  allow  organization  of  theological  courses 
only  in  large  cities,  and  only  with  the  permission  of  the 
Gubernial  Executive  Committee  and  the  consent  of  the 
People’s  Commissariat  of  Education,  and  the  depart- 


The  Soviet  Ecclesiastical  Legislation  157 

ment  of  cults  of  the  People’s  Commissariat  of  Justice. 
Only  persons  who  have  reached  their  eighteenth  year 
of  age  may  be  admitted  to  these  courses.  As  the 
Supreme  Ecclesiastical  Administration,  the  eparchial 
ecclesiastical  administrations,  and  the  groups  of  believ¬ 
ers  and  religious  societies  are  deprived  of  their 
juridical  rights,  the  establishment  of  theological 
courses  may  be  undertaken  only  by  private  citizens  of 
good  legal  standing,  or  a  group  of  them;  but  these 
persons  must,  when  applying  for  the  permission  to 
inaugurate  the  courses,  present  a  program  or  plan  of 
instruction,  and  the  conditions  under  which  the 
courses  shall  be  given,  as  well  as  the  list  of  instructors. 

The  rules  about  organizing  theological  or  religious 
courses  govern  all  cults  and  religious  societies  existing 
in  the  R.  S.  F.  S.  R.T 

This  is  another  example  of  unjust  Soviet  legislation, 
which  on  the  one  hand  had  proclaimed  religion  to  be  a 
private  affair,  and  had  severed  all  connection  of  the 
church  with  the  state,  and  on  the  other  passes  such 
irksome,  restraining  limitations  under  which  these  sup¬ 
posedly  free  private  opinions  may  be  propagated.  As 
the  result  of  this  action,  the  vast  Russian  Orthodox 
communion  possesses  at  the  present  time  only  two  com¬ 
paratively  weak  theological  academies,  and  both  of 
them  are  controlled  by  the  synodical  party,  while  the 
patriarchal  party,  comprising  some  two-thirds  of  the 
entire  communion  (some  sixty  millions),  has  no  theo¬ 
logical  training  school  at  all!  And  this  is  the  ninth 
year  of  such  a  state  of  affairs! 

The  limitations  of  the  civil  status  of  the  clergy  and 
the  monks  are  likewise  considerable,  and  often  of  a 

7  Fifth  section  of  the  People’s  Commissariat  of  Justice,  May  2, 
1923,  No.  280. 


158  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

serious  nature.  In  the  first  place,  the  Constitution  of 
the  R.  S.  F.  S.  R.  specifies  that:  “among  those  who  do 
not  elect  and  cannot  be  elected  are:  .  .  .  monks 
and  spiritual  ministers  of  religious  cults  of  all  confes¬ 
sions  and  denominations,  for  whom  that  employment 
is  a  profession.”8  In  accordance  with  a  later  defini¬ 
tion,9  a  minister  of  a  religious  cult  is  a  person  who  is  a 
member  of  the  parish  clergy  and|  performs  religious 
rites,  as  for  instance,  bishops,  priests,  deacons,  rabbis, 
mullahs,  etc.  Those  individuals  who  receive  their 
income  from  some  ecclesiastical  employment,  but  do 
not  perform  religious  rites,  such  as  psalm-singers,  can¬ 
tors,  kosher  butchers,  and  members  of  the  choir,  are  not 
included  in  this  category.  Wives  of  professional 
ministers  of  religion  are  not  deprived  of  their  political 
rights. 

The  reason  for  this  discrimination  is  explained  to 
rest  upon  the  view  held  by  the  Communists  regarding 
the  very  nature  of  citizenship:  in  bourgeois  countries, 
it  may  be  contingent  upon  financial  or  educational 
qualifications;  in  Russia,  it  rests  upon  the  character  of 
the  work  in  which  the  particular  individual  is  engaged. 
He  is  classified  as  engaged  either  in  “productive”  or 
“non-productive”  work;  the  latter  category,  as  para¬ 
sitic,  includes  “the  servitors  of  cults,”  and  they  are 
consequently  deprived  of  the  franchise. 

Persons  engaged  in  part-time  work  of  some  ecclesias¬ 
tical  nature  may  be  employed  in  certain  governmental 
departments,  exclusive  of  the  People’s  Commissariats 
of  Education,  Justice,  Agriculture,  Commerce,  and 

8  Izyestiya,  May  26,  1925;  quoted  in  Gidulyanov,  op.  cit.,  p.  282. 

9  Circular,  People’s  Commissariat  of  Finance,  No.  686,  art.  6,  Feb. 
26,  1924;  quoted  in  Gidulyanov,  op.  cit.,  p.  288. 


The  Soviet  Ecclesiastical  Legislation  159 

some  departments  of  the  Commissariat  of  the  Interior, 
the  Workers- Peasant  Inspection,  although  they  may 
not  be  appointed  to  categories  of  work  higher  than  the 
sixteenth  (seventeenth  is  the  highest).  Of  course,  their 
duties  connected  with  the  church  service  must  be  per¬ 
formed  exclusively  outside  of  the  working  hours.10 

Besides  this,  in  accordance  with  the  order  of  the 
People’s  Commissariat  of  Education,11  clergy  of  all 
ranks  and  confessions  are  excluded  from  holding  any 
positions  in  schools.  Persons  who  formerly  belonged  to 
the  clerical  profession,  but  have  given  up  their  orders, 
are  permitted  to  fill  such  positions  after  securing  a 
special  permission  from  the  Commissariat  for  that 
purpose. 

Clergy  of  all  ranks  are  excluded  from  all  cooperative 
societies,  but  are  granted  land  on  the  same  general 
basis  upon  which  it  is  distributed  to  others.  But  in 
case  the  same  piece  of  land  is  petitioned  for  by  a 
clergyman  and  a  workingman,  preference  is  given  to 
the  latter.  Widows  and  orphans  of  priests  are  not  dis¬ 
criminated  against  in  regard  to  receiving  pensions. 

As  for  “the  days  of  rest/’  the  Soviet  government  pro¬ 
claimed  as  legal  May  first,  the  New  Year,  the  Day  of 
the  First  Revolution  (January  9,  1905),  the  Day  of 
the  Paris  Commune,  the  Day  of  the  Overthrow  of  the 
Tsarist  Monarchy,  and  the  Day  of  the  October  Revolu¬ 
tion,  as  well  as  a  few  others ;  beyond  that,  the  days  of 
rest  were  left  for  the  decision  of  local  authorities  and 
unions,  but  it  was  specified  that  a  period  of  rest  must 
occur  once  a  week,  and  may  fall  either  on  Sunday  or 

10  Instruction  of  the  Commissariats  of  Justice  and  of  the  Interior, 
June  19,  1923,  section  14. 

11  Revolution  and  the  Church ,  No.  2,  p.  40. 


160  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

any  other  day  of  the  week,  in  accordance  with  the 
nationalist  or  religious  predilections  of  the  particular 
community  for  which  the  regulation  was  made.12  Be¬ 
sides,  the  great  Orthodox  holidays  were  also  permitted 
to  be  celebrated,  and  their  dates  were  officially  specified. 

The  treatment  of  the  pacifists  was  considerate,  to 
say  the  least.  An  individual  who  from  religious 
principle  and  conviction  could  not  serve  in  the  army 
in  the  usual  capacity  of  trained  man-killer  was  per¬ 
mitted,  after  his  case  was  adjudicated  by  the  People’s 
Court,  to  exchange  that  type  of  service  for  sanitary 
or  hospital  duty,  or  any  other  kind  of  service  chosen 
by  the  person  concerned.  But  he  must  prove  the 
sincerity  of  his  conviction  by.  producing  a  record  of 
his  membership  in  a  religious  body  of  known  pacifist 
profession,  and  must  submit  other  proofs  of  his  asser¬ 
tions  as  desired  by  the  court.13 

Finally,  it  must  be  mentioned  that  the  legislation 
which  has  been  so  meagerly  presented  here  was  drawn 
exclusively  from  the  code  operative  in  the  Russian 
Socialistic  Federated  Soviet  Republic,  but  that  each 
of  the  separate  units  which  form  the  Union  of  Soviet 
Socialistic  Republics  has  passed  legislation  of  its  own 
governing  all  these  various  subjects.  No  attention  has 
been  paid  to  these  other  units  in  the  present  review, 
for  each  subject  would  have  to  be  treated  under  the 
heading  of  the  Union,  of  the  Russian  Republic,  as  well 
as  that  of  the  Ukrainian,  White  Russian,  Transcau¬ 
casian,  and  other  units.  But  since  the  legislation  is 
essentially  identical,  it  was  not  deemed  expedient  to  go 
into  the  amount  of  detail  necessary  to  point  out  the 

13  Gidulyanov:  op.  cit.,  p.  58;  Code  of  Work,  1922,  No.  70. 

13  Decree  of  the  C.  P.  S.,  Dec.  14,  1920;  quoted  in  Gidulyanov, 
p.  378. 


The  Soviet  Ecclesiastical  Legislation  161 

rest.  It  is  well,  however,  to  bear  in  mind  that  the  legis¬ 
lation  presented  is,  from  the  legal  point  of  view,  actu¬ 
ally  operative  only  in  one  unit  of  the  Union,  and 
although  the  rest  of  them  are  governed  by  similar 
provisions,  an  exhaustive  treatment  would  have  to  take 
account  of  the  differences  wherever  they  exist. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE  FAMINE  AND  ITS  CONSEQUENCES 

The  state  of  civil  warfare  to  which  the  mutual  rela¬ 
tions  of  the  church  and  the  state  were  comparable 
reached  a  stage  of  desperate  crisis  when,  to  the  devasta¬ 
tions  caused  by  the  civil  wars,  was  added  the  terrible 
natural  calamity  of  famine  which  afflicted  that 
unhappy  land  in  1921.  In  the  summer  of  that  year, 
the  Volga  region,  and  to  a  lesser  degree  other  regions, 
were  affected  by  a  terrible  and  widespread  drought, 
which  brought  famine  in  its  wake.  The  calamity  was 
also  brought  partly  by  artificial  causes  connected  with 
the  peasants’  resentment  of  the  communistic  methods 
applied  by  the  government  to  the  rural  population, 
i.e.  the  confiscation  of  all  their  crops  with  the  excep¬ 
tion  of  the  amount  needed  for  their  families,  which 
naturally  resulted  in  the  peasants’  retaliating  by  not 
sowing  any  more  than  was  strictly  needed  for  them¬ 
selves.  But  in  addition  to  this,  in  1921,  a  terrible 
drought,  such  as  had  not  been  experienced  for  many 
decades,  afflicted  the  region  and  destroyed  even  the 
little  that  was  sown.  Ultimately,  the  famine  affected 
twenty-three  gubernias ,  with  a  population  of  over 
thirty-seven  million,  of  whom  almost  five  million  died ; 
this  staggering  disaster  for  the  time  being  required  all 
the  energies  of  the  government,  as  well  as  of  the  various 
professional  and  private  societies,  and  stirred  the  sym¬ 
pathies  of  the  entire  civilized  world.  America  sent  its 
Relief  Expedition  and  its  Y.  M.  C.  A.;  the  Quakers 

162 


The  Famine  and  Its  Consequences  163 

helped  a  great  deal;  and  many  European  organizations, 
like  that  of  Dr.  Nansen,  the  Swedish  and  the  German 
Red  Cross,  the  Amsterdam  Professional  Unions,  etc., 
took  part  in  the  work.  This  aid  ameliorated  the  hor¬ 
rible  suffering  of  the  people  of  the  stricken  regions,  but 
did  not  entirely  relieve  it,  for  all  this  combined  effort 
proved  to  be  insufficient.  The  relief  organizations 
finally  frankly  restricted  themselves  to  the  feeding  of 
children,  for  their  supplies  were  insufficient  to  include 
the  grown  people.  These  were  left  to  die,  the  total 
number  of  people  who  died  of  starvation  having 
reached  almost  five  million.  The  extent  of  the  calam¬ 
ity  was  so  overwhelming  that  for  the  time  being  the 
need  of  aid  to  the  starving  was  uppermost  in  the  minds 
of  all. 

The  church  was  likewise  roused  to  act  the  good 
Samaritan.  As  early  as  the  month  of  August,  1921, 
the  patriarch  issued  an  appeal  for  help  for  the  starv¬ 
ing,  addressed  to  the  Eastern  Orthodox  patriarchs  and 
autocephalous  churches,  to  the  pope  of  Rome,  to  the 
archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  the  bishop  of  New 
York.  As  for  the  Russian  church  itself,  an  all-Russian 
church  committee  was  organized  for  the  purpose  of 
aiding  the  starving,  and  collections  of  money  and  pro¬ 
visions  were  gathered  in  churches  and  by  the  parochial 
brotherhoods.  The  money  thus  collected  was  to  be 
expended  through  the  administrative  channels  of  the 
church  for  the  relief  of  the  starving  masses.  How  far 
the  church  authorities  might  have  gone  in  this  work 
of  saving  the  lives  of  the  starving  in  the  affected  areas 
would  be  hazardous  to  estimate;  whether  they  would 
have  come  to  the  point  of  voluntarily  sacrificing  the 
profuse  and  gorgeous  church  ornaments  with  which 
the  Ortho  iox  churches  fairly  glittered,  or  whether  they 


164  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 


would  even  under  such  circumstances  stop  short  of 
that  sacrifice,  is  impossible  to  tell.  But  it  would  be 
unbelievable  that  the  church  would  remain  deliberately 
indifferent  to  the  intense  suffering  of  the  masses  and 
the  enormous  resultant  death  rate  which  was  daily 
increasing. 

But  the  situation  became  complicated  by  the  atti¬ 
tude  which  the  government  took  in  the  matter:  it 
insisted  that  the  relief  administration  must  be  central¬ 
ized  in  the  hands  of  the  governmental  committee  on 
relief,  and  pronounced  the  separate  church  committee 
as  superfluous.  Had  normal  conditions  prevailed 
between  the  church  and  the  state,  this  action  of  the 
government  must  necessarily  be  pronounced  extremely 
unwise  and  indefensible;  but  conditions  were  anything 
but  normal,  and  in  relation  to  the  church  were,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  highly  strained,  and  in  that  light  one 
can  understand  the  mistrust  with  which  the  authori¬ 
ties  would  look  upon  the  separately  administered  relief 
carried  on  by  the  church.  It  is  likewise  evident  that 
the  authorities  were  unwilling  to  permit  the  church  to 
gain  the  prestige  or  credit  which  such  an  independent 
action  would  necessarily  imply.  Hence  all  sums  which 
had  already  been  collected  by  the  church  committee 
on  relief  were  ordered  to  be  turned  over  to  the  state 
committee,  and  the  demand  was  complied  with.1 

1  There  are  some  who  affirm  that  the  church  authorities  were  not 
baffled  even  now :  they  are  said  to  have  approached,  unofficially,  the 
American  Relief  Administration,  with  the  proposal  of  surrendering 
the  unconsecrated  church  treasures  to  the  American  organization  as 
a  security  for  a  foreign  loan  to  be  negotiated  in  behalf  of  the  church. 
The  reasons  actuating  the  church  to  approach  the  American  group 
were  that  they  trusted  it  not  to  subject  the  church  valuables  to  dis¬ 
respectful  handling;  furthermore,  the  negotiators  had  hopes  of  recov¬ 
ering  these  objects  again  when  better  times  should  return.  But 
unfortunately,  the  American  Relief  Administration,  having  bound 
itself  by  the  Riga  agreement  with  the  Soviet  authoriti  es  to  refrain 


The  Famine  and  Its  Consequences  165 

The  meager  results  which  followed  this  disposition 
of  the  matter  evidently  impressed  the  Soviet  authori¬ 
ties  that  much  more  could  be  done  if  the  church  were 
given  greater  freedom  in  handling  the  funds.  What¬ 
ever  the  motives  were  which  actuated  the  government, 
it  issued  an  appeal  which  in  some  way  modified  the 
existing  regulations: 

Decision  of  the  Presidium  of  the  All-Russian  Central 
Executive  Committee: 

Taking  into  consideration  the  long  list  of  solicita¬ 
tions  from  various  religious  societies  asking  for 
permission  to  make  collections  for  the  relief  of  the 
starving,  the  Presidium  of  the  All-Russian  Central 
Executive  Committee  decided: 

1.  To  permit  the  ecclesiastical  authorities  and  the 
various  religious  societies  to  make  the  collections; 

2.  To  direct  the  Centropomgol  (the  Central  Com¬ 
mittee  for  Aid  of  the  Starving)  to  enter  into  an  agree¬ 
ment  with  the  religious  societies  about  the  method  of 
collection  of  contributions,  having  in  view  the  wishes 
of  the  donors. 

M.  Kalinin,  President  A.  C.  E.  C. 

A.  Enukidze,  Secretary  A.  C.  E.  C. 
Moscow,  Kremlin,  December  9,  1921. 2 

But  in  spite  of  all  efforts  of  the  government  to  stimu¬ 
late  the  church  to  a  larger  giving,  the  results  were  not 
gratifying;  whether  rightly  or  wrongly,  the  conviction 

from  any  acts  which  could  be  construed  as  interference  with  the 
internal  administration,  felt  obliged  to  decline  the  proposal  of  the 
church  as  contrary  to  the  Riga  agreement.  Upon  inquiry  at  the 
offices  of  the  American  Relief  Administration,  an  answer  was  returned 
stating  that  the  office  had  no  information  or  record  of  any  such  offer, 
and  that  the  Administration  could  not  have  even  considered  the 
proposition  except  through  the  proper  officials  of  the  Soviet  govern¬ 
ment.  That  disposes  of  this  particular  rumor  as  unfounded. 

2  N.  N.  Fioletov:  The  Church  and  the  Government  in  accordance 
with  the  Soviet  Law,  1923,  pp.  21-22.  (In  Russian.)  Also,  The 
Black  Book ,  p.  158.  (In  Russian.) 


166  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

was  growing  in  the  minds  of  the  authorities  that  the 
church  was  deliberately  withholding  its  full  measure 
of  aid  in  the  hope  that  it  might  thus  contribute  to  the 
paralyzing  of  the  government,  and  that  the  resultant 
failure  of  the  authorities  to  grapple  adequately  with 
the  staggering  need  might  in  turn  result  in  its  over¬ 
throw.  This,  as  has  been  stated,  need  not  necessarily 
have  been  the  actual  intention  of  the  church,  but  the 
fact  that  the  government  was  in  the  mood  to  believe 
it  to  be  a  fact  produced  the  same  result.  And  most 
unfortunately,  for  nothing  really  worse  could  have 
happened  at  the  time  than  what  did  happen:  the 
emigre  clergy,  most  of  whom  had  left  in  the  wake  of 
the  White  Guard  armies,  held,  in  December,  1921,  a 
Sobor  in  Karlovtsi,  in  the  Kingdom  of  the  Serbs, 
Croats,  and  Slovenes,  and  their  irresponsible  decrees 
rendered  the  situation  in  Russia  decidedly  worse.  The 
Sobor  was  attended  by  nine  archbishops,  an  archiman¬ 
drite,  and  other  high-placed  ecclesiastics,  most  of  whom 
had  left  Russia  with  the  retreating  armies  of  the 
would-be  restorers  of  the  ancient  regime,  such  as  Deni¬ 
kin,  Wrangel,  and  others.  Aside  from  the  ecclesiastics, 
the  Sobor  was  attended  by  a  goodly  number  of  former 
tsarist  officials  and  officers  of  the  tsarist  and  White 
Guard  armies,  as  well  as  members  of  the  Black 
Hundred  party:  the  former  ober-procuror  of  the  Holy 
Synod,  Count  Volzhin;  secretary  of  the  tsar,  Count 
Apraksin;  the  head  of  the  general  staff  of  the  Wrangel 
army,  General  Arkh  angel' sky ;  a  former  member  of 
the  governmental  Council,  Prince  Putyatin ;  a  minister 
in  the  Kolchak  government,  Lokot’,  and  many  others. 


The  Famine  and  Its  Consequences  167 

The  total  number  in  attendance  at  the  Sobor  reached 
almost  one  hundred.3 

The  Sobor  elected  as  its  president  the  most  outstand¬ 
ing  opponent  of  the  Soviet  regime  and  leader  of  the 
conservative  party  within  the  Russian  church,  Metro¬ 
politan  Antony  (Khrapovitsky),  formerly  of  Kiev  and 
Galicia,  who,  as  will  be  remembered,  was  probably  the 
chief  candidate  for  the  patriarchal  cowl  at  the  Sobor  of 
1917.  His  election  to  the  presidency  of  the  Karlovtsi 
Sobor  was  characteristic  of  the  spirit  dominating  this 
assembly.  What  wonder  that  this  group  should  adopt 
the  extremely  unwise  political  measure,  resulting  in 
untold  injury  to  the  interests  of  the  church  in  Russia,  in 
the  Message  of  the  Church  Sobor,  demanding  the  resto¬ 
ration  of  the  monarchical  government  in  Russia.  At 
first,  two-thirds  of  the  members  demanded  an  explicit 
statement  that  the  throne  be  occupied  by  “a  lawful, 
Orthodox  tsar  of  the  house  of  Romanov”;  but  this 
measure  was  opposed  by  the  remaining  one-third  as 
unwise,  and  as  tending  to  jeopardize,  by  tying  it  too 
closely  with  the  fortunes  of  the  commonly  hated  former 
imperial  dynasty,  the  very  goal  desired — the  restora¬ 
tion  of  the  monarchy.  The  resolution  was  adopted, 
nevertheless,  in  accordance  with  the  desires  of  the 
majority,  i.e.  in  favor  of  the  inclusion  of  a  specific  ref¬ 
erence  to  the  house  of  Romanov. 

The  Sobor  also  appealed  to  the  army  of  Baron  Wr an¬ 
gel  to  hold  itself  in  readiness  for  the  execution  of  its 
program.  Besides,  the  president  of  the  Sobor,  Metro¬ 
politan  Antony,  issued  a  proclamation  in  January, 

8  Cf.  Krasikov:  On  the  Church  Front ,  p.  187;  also  pp.  221-22.  (In 
Russian.) 


168  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

1922,  appealing  in  the  name  of  the  Sobor  to  the  Genoa 
Conference  which  was  just  then  in  session,  and  through 
it  to  the  world: 

...  If  during  this  conference,  or  afterwards,  the 
Bolshevik  regime  in  Russia  should  receive  recognition 
as  the  legitimate  one,  there  will  result  Bolshevik  upris¬ 
ings  in  one  country  after  another.  Their  success  or 
prevention  depends  upon  the  following  measures: 
(1)  upon  non-recognition  of  Bolsheviks  on  the  part  of 
all  governments;  (2)  upon  the  terrible  havoc  wrought 
by  the  famine,  cold,  and  epidemic  at  present  devastat¬ 
ing  Russia,  which  has  been  caused  by  the  Bolshevik 
mismanagement.  Peoples  of  Europe,  and  of  the  world, 
have  pity  upon  this  nation,  and  equip  its  sons  with 
arms;  then  they,  together  with  their  dear  comrades — 
officers,  generals,  and  soldiers — will  be  ready  to  spring 
up  and  march  into  Russia,  to  rescue  it  from  its  enslave¬ 
ment  by  the  robbers! 

Antony,  Bishop  of  Galicia  and  Kiev, 
President  of  the  Russian  Ecclesiastical  Administration 

Abroad.4, 

This  unhappy  and  highly  compromising  incident  was 
used  to  excellent  advantage  by  the  authorities,  who 
stressed  the  Sobor’s  reference  to  the  famine  as  a  proof 
that  the  church  deliberately  exploited  the  calamity  by 
using  it  for  the  overthrow  of  the  government.  It  has 
never  been  proven,  I  think,  that  Patriarch  Tikhon  had 
ever  been  in  collusion  with  the  Karlovtsi  Sobor;  but 
superficially  viewed,  the  fact  that  a  group  of  the  Rus¬ 
sian  clergy,  with  such  important  leaders  among  them  as 
was  Antony,  could  pass  such  pronouncements  as  were 
passed  at  Karlovtsi,  was  supremely  damaging  to  the 

4  Quoted  from  a  speech  of  Krasikov  at  the  trial  of  Metropolitan 
Benjamin  in  Revolution  and  the  Church,  1-3,  1923,  p.  83.  (In 
Russian.) 


The  Famine  and  Its  Consequences  169 

church  at  home,  and  the  charge  of  collusion  has  been 
repeatedly  made.  Even  such  a  highly  placed  official 
of  the  Commissariat  of  Justice  as  was  Krasikov  directly 
indicted,  in  his  book  On  the  Church  Front  *  Patriarch 
Tikhon  with  having  had  full  knowledge  of  the  proceed¬ 
ings  at  Karlovtsi,  and  having  secretly  collaborated  with 
the  leaders  there;  he  peremptorily  demanded  that  the 
patriarch  either  acknowledge  his  direct  connection  with 
his  subordinates  who  had  met  at  the  Karlovtsi  Sobor, 
or  “excommunicate  them  for  conspiracy  and  treason.” 
Patriarch  Tikhon  protested  that  he  could  not  excom¬ 
municate  anyone  who  was  not  living  within  his  terri¬ 
torial  jurisdiction;  this  may  have  been  canonically  cor¬ 
rect,  but  it  did  not  help  to  allay  the  very  real  suspicion 
which  lurked  in  the  minds  of  the  authorities.  The 
Karlovtsi  incident  was  a  most  powerful  factor  in  bring¬ 
ing  on  the  crisis  which  culminated  in  the  spring  of  1922. 

The  action  of  the  Karlovtsi  Sobor  was  severely  crit¬ 
icized  even  by  some  emigres  themselves,  for  to  the  more 
moderate  elements  among  them  it  was  obvious  what  a 
disastrous  effect  the  pronouncement  must  necessarily 
produce  in  Russia.  The  former  minister  of  confessions 
under  the  Kerensky  government,  A.  Kartashev,  con¬ 
demned  the  political  activity  of  the  Sobor  as  both 
unwise  and  in  the  extreme  injurious.8  Prince  Gregory 
Trubetskoy,  who  had  fought  in  the  White  Guard 
Armies,  publicly  declared  that,  in  all  his  dealings  with 
the  patriarch,  the  latter  always  resolutely  refused  to 
commit  himself  in  any  way  to  the  White  Guard  posi¬ 
tion,  and  that  he  opposed  the  Karlovtsi  Sobor.7 

B  Ibid.,  p.  191. 

0  “Politics  and  the  Church,”  in  Russian  Thought,  Jan.-Feb.,  1922. 
(In  Russian.) 

7  The  Black  Book,  pp.  161-62. 


170  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

The  famine,  far  from  being  put  under  control,  grew 
to  ever  greater  proportions,  and  was  quickly  attended 
by  other  dreaded  scourges  consequent  upon  it;  typhus 
and  a  host  of  other  diseases  exacted  enormous  tolls. 
The  extreme  suffering  of  the  people  was  indescribable. 
All  help  hitherto  rendered  proved  utterly  insufficient, 
and  thousands,  even  hundreds  of  thousands,  were 
doomed  to  death.  The  help  coming  from  the  church 
was  not  great,  or  possibly  the  church’s  wealth  was 
grossly  overestimated.  Nevertheless,  the  result  was 
the  same:  the  church  was  suspected  of  unwillingness 
to  help  and  of  secretly  hoping  that  the  calamity  would 
prove  the  political  undoing  of  the  Soviet  government. 
It  is  no  wonder  that  finally,  early  in  1922,  the  eyes  of 
the  government,  as  well  as  of  many  private  individuals, 
began  to  turn  toward  the  church  treasures  as  a  possible 
source  of  help.  Newspapers  began  to  point  out  that 
these  treasures  might  prove  the  veritable  and  absolute 
victory  over  the  famine:  one  writer  estimated  that  if 
all  church  treasures  were  appropriated  and  turned  into 
silver  the  total  would  amount  to  some  five  hundred  and 
twenty-five  thousand  pounds  of  silver,  which  would  be 
equivalent  in  value  to  the  purchasing  power  of  five 
hundred  and  twenty-five  million  pounds  of  bread, 
which  in  turn  would  suffice  to  feed  the  starving  popula¬ 
tion.8  To  such  alluring  computations  must  be  added 
the  constant  appeals  addressed  to  the  harassed  govern¬ 
ment  which  the  desperate  population  showered  upon 
it  in  an  effort  to  save  itself  or  to  save  others.  A  sample 
of  such  a  cry  for  help  may  be  presented: 

We,  peasants  and  workers,  wish  to  direct  the  atten¬ 
tion  of  the  central  authorities  to  our  difficult  situation. 
People  are  unable  to  hold  out.  They  are  dying  of 
8  Izvestiya,  March  15,  1922. 


The  Famine  and  Its  Consequences  171 

starvation  daily.  The  available  aid  is  insufficient. 
Scarcely  one-tenth  of  the  starving  are  fed.  The  popula¬ 
tion  seeks  an  escape  from  such  a  disaster. 

The  population  is  conscious  that  our  government  is 
poverty-stricken,  that  it  has  no  means  with  which  to 
feed  all  the  starving.  We  are  sincerely  grateful  to  the 
government  that  it  made  the  sowing  of  the  fall  wheat 
possible,  and  that  now  it  has  secured  the  seed  for  the 
spring  sowing.  But  we  would  direct  the  attention  of 
the  authorities  to  the  fact  that  there  exists  in  our  coun¬ 
try  great  wealth  deposited  in  churches  and  monasteries. 
We  presume  that  this  wealth  is  the  property  of  the 
nation.  We  think  that  our  Christian  duty  consists  in 
using  the  goods  to  save  the  perishing  brethren. 

We  beg  our  government  to  take  measures  to  use  the 
superfluous  church  property  for  the  feeding  of  the  fam¬ 
ine-stricken.  We  present  this  petition  in  the  conviction 
that  the  starving  and  everybody  else  who  knows  how 
the  people  suffer  would  support  us  in  it.9 

Although  there  is  no  doubt  whatever  that  the  need 
was  overwhelmingly  great,  and  the  government  really 
hard-pressed  for  means  to  save  the  famishing,  and  the 
church  ornaments  of  gold,  silver,  and  precious  stones 
lay  at  hand  offering  ready  means  of  at  least  partially 
relieving  the  emergency,  let  it  not  be  forgotten  that  at 
the  same  time  the  Soviet  authorities  had  the  disposi¬ 
tion  of  the  former  imperial  jewels,  the  aggregate  value 
of  which  was  estimated,  when  I  saw  them  in  Moscow 
in  the  summer  of  1926,  at  five  hundred  million  rubles. 
It  would  be  interesting  to  know  how  the  retention  of 
these  treasures  would  be  justified  in  the  face  of  the  sup¬ 
posed  irresistible  urgency  and  necessity  for  confiscating 
the  church  treasures. 

9  Quoted  in  Iona  Brikhnichev:  Patriarch  Tikhon  and  his  Church , 
Moscow,  1923,  p.  12.  (In  Russian.) 


172  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

The  patriarch  probably  thoroughly  sensed  the  grav¬ 
ity  of  the  situation,  and  to  forestall  the  worst  issued, 
on  February  19,  1922,  a  special  proclamation  by 
which  he  gave  his  permission  and  encouragement  to 
all  parochial  councils  and  brotherhoods  to  sacrifice, 
for  the  needs  of  the  starving,  all  unconsecrated  orna¬ 
ments  and  other  objects  of  value  which  were  found 
in  churches  except  those  used  for  worship  purposes 
officially  consecrated  for  church  use.  Such  objects,  of 
course,  were  comparatively  few  in  number  and  of  no 
great  value;  the  patriarch,  furthermore,  specified  dis¬ 
tinctly  that  all  articles  which  had  been  consecrated, 
whether  used  directly  for  worship  purposes  or  not, 
could  not  be  surrendered,  for  such  action  would  con¬ 
stitute  a  breach  of  the  canonical  rules.  This  procla¬ 
mation  was  permitted  by  the  government  to  be  printed 
and  distributed  among  the  people. 

Thereupon  the  patriarch  and  the  church  were 
assailed  in  a  series  of  violent  attacks,  in  which  Tikhon’s 
position  was  represented  as  a  refusal  to  save  the  lives 
of  the  starving  by  selfishly  urging  canonical  impedi¬ 
ments,  and  which  alleged  that  his  flimsy  excuses  were 
mere  attempts  to  camouflage  the  callous,  grasping 
greed  of  the  church  and  its  determination  to  impede  the 
government  by  increasing  its  difficulties  as  much  as 
possible.  The  state,  on  its  part,  was  not  loath  to  use 
the  occasion  to  the  fullest  extent  to  humble  and  break 
its  formidable  opponent,  the  church,  which  it  regarded, 
doubtlessly  sincerely,  as  a  dangerous  anti-revolutionary 
organization,  and  which  it  was  glad  to  damage  or  ruin 
as  a  part  of  the  price  to  be  paid  for  its  own  security 
and  stability. 

Hence  the  government  now  decided  to  act :  on  Febru¬ 
ary  23,  1922,  President  Kalinin,  in  behalf  of  the 


The  Famine  and  Its  Consequences  173 

A.C.E.C.,  issued  a  decree  directing  the  proper  authori¬ 
ties  to  “remove”  the  church  treasures  not  used  for  the 
purpose  of  worship  from  their  repositories.  The 
importance  of  this  document  again  compels  quoting: 

In  view  of  the  necessity  for  quick  mobilization  of  all 
the  resources  of  the  country  to  serve  as  means  of  strug¬ 
gle  with  the  famine  in  the  Volga  region,  and  for  the 
sowing  of  the  fields  there,  the  All-Russian  Central 
Executive  Committee,  supplementing  the  decree 
regarding  the  removal  of  property  for  museums,  has 
decreed : 

1.  To  instruct  local  soviets  to  remove  from  the 
ecclesiastical  property,  which  was  delivered  for  the 
use  of  groups  of  believers  of  all  religions  upon  inventory 
and  contract,  within  a  month  from  the  day  of  publica¬ 
tion  of  this  decree,  all  valuable  objects  of  gold,  silver, 
and  precious  stones,  the  removal  of  which  cannot  actu¬ 
ally  interfere  with  the  interests  of  the  cult  itself,  and 
to  transfer  them  to  the  offices  of  the  People’s  Commis¬ 
sariat  of  Finance,  with  the  special  designation  for  the 
Fund  of  the  Central  Commission  for  Aid  of  the 
Starving. 

2.  In  order  that  this  measure  may  be  properly  exe¬ 
cuted,  each  gubernium  must  organize  a  commission  of 
responsible  representatives  of  the  gubernial  executive 
committee,  of  the  gubernial  commission  of  aid  for  the 
starving,  and  the  gubernial  financial  department,  under 
the  presidency  of  one  of  the  members  of  the  All-Rus¬ 
sian  Central  Executive  Committee,  for  the  purpose  of 
giving  an  exact  account  of  the  above-mentioned  valu¬ 
ables  as  well  as  for  their  transfer  to  the  organs  of  the 
People’s  Commissariat  of  Finance,  and  for  the  purpose 
of  rendering  a  special  account  to  the  Central  Commis¬ 
sion  of  Aid  for  the  Starving. 

3.  Revision  of  the  contracts  as*  well  as  the  actual 
removal  of  the  valuables  after  their  inventory  must  be 


174  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

done  in  the  required  presence  of  the  representatives  of 
the  group  of  believers  to  whose  use  the  property  was 
transferred. 

4.  The  removed  property  shall  constitute  a  special 
fund  and  be  accounted  for  separately,  and  must  be  used 
exclusively  for  the  needs  of  the  starving,  in  a  manner 
specified  in  a  special  instruction  prepared  by  the  Cen¬ 
tral  Committee  for  Aid  of  the  Starving,  with  the  con¬ 
sent  of  the  People’s  Commissariat  of  Finance  and  the 
Commission  for  the  accounting,  removing,  and  collect¬ 
ing  of  the  valuables. 

5.  A  report  of  all  the  valuables  taken  from  ecclesias¬ 
tical  property,  and  of  their  disposition,  shall  be  made 
periodically  in  the  newspapers  by  the  Central  Com¬ 
mission  for  Aid  of  the  Starving,  and  at  the  same  time 
the  local  papers  must  give  a  detailed  description  of  the 
valuables  taken  from  the  local  churches,  places  of 
prayer,  synagogues,  etc.,  with  the  specification  of  the 
name  of  those  churches. 

Signed:  M.  Kalinin,  President  A.  C.  E.  C. 

A.  Enukidze,  Secretary  A.  C.  E.  C.10 

Let  it  be  particularly  noticed  that  the  decree  specifies 
that  articles  necessary  for  religious  services,  such  as  the 
chalice,  paten,  star,  spoon,  and  dish,  were  to  be  left 
in  the  churches,  as  well  as  any  other  object  the  removal 
of  which  “would  actually  interfere  with  the  interests 
of  the  cult  itself.”  But  the  decree  ignored  the  distinc¬ 
tion  made  by  Patriarch  Tikhon  in  his  earlier  proclama¬ 
tion  between  the  consecrated  and  the  unconsecrated 
objects  and  ornaments. 

Within  two  days,11  the  official  instructions,  issued  by 
the  Commission  for  the  removal  of  ecclesiastical  valu¬ 
ables,  appeared,  and  in  general  proved  to  be  amplifica- 

10  Published  first  in  Izvestiya,  No.  46,  Feb.  26,  1922;  quoted  in 
N.  N.  Fioletov:  op.  cit.,  pp.  42-43. 

1 1  Izvestiya ,  Feb.  28,  1922. 


The  Famine  and  Its  Consequences  175 

tions  of  the  decree  itself.  But  the  same  day  these 
instructions  were  published,  Patriarch  Tikhon  issued 
his  famous  answer  to  the  decree,  which,  as  it  proved, 
was  the  beginning  of  the  end  of  the  long-drawn-out 
struggle  between  the  church  and  the  state.  The  docu¬ 
ment  is  of  very  great  intrinsic  value  for  a  proper  under¬ 
standing  of  the  intricate  web  of  events  which  had  such 
epoch-making  consequences  for  the  Russian  church, 
and  hence  it  is  important  to  be  acquainted  with  its 
exact  text : 

Proclamation  of  the  Most  Holy  Patriarch 
Tikhon  Regarding  the  Aid  for  the  Starving 
By  the  grace  of  God,  humble  Tikhon,  patriarch  of 
Moscow  and  of  all  Russia,  to  all  faithful  children  of  the 
Russian  Orthodox  Church. 

May  the  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  be  with  you. 
Among  the  heavy  calamities  and  trials  which  befell  the 
world  on  account  of  our  lawlessness,  the  greatest  and 
the  most  terrible  is  the  famine  which  affected  wide 
regions  inhabited  by  many  millions  of  people.  As  early 
as  August,  1921,  when  rumors  about  the  terrible 
calamity  began  to  reach  our  ears,  we,  regarding  it  our 
duty  to  come  to  the  aid  of  our  suffering  spiritual 
children,  addressed  a  message  to  the  heads  of  the 
several  Christian  communions  (to  the  Orthodox  patri¬ 
archs,  the  Roman  pope,  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
and  the  bishop  of  New  York),  appealing  to  them,  for 
the  sake  of  Christian  love,  to  make  collections  of  money 
and  provisions  for  the  starving  Volga  region  people. 

At  the  same  time,  an  All-Russian  Committee  of  Aid 
for  the  Starving  was  organized,  and  money  was  being 
collected  in  all  churches  as  well  as  among  the  various 
groups,  to  be  devoted  to  the  aid  of  the  famine-stricken. 
But  such  a  church  committee  was  declared  superfluous 
by  the  Soviet  government,  and  all  sums  already  col- 


176  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

lected  by  it  were  ordered  to  be  turned  over  (and  were 
turned  over)  to  the  governmental  committee. 

However,  in  December,  we  were  requested  to  collect, 
through  the  instrumentality  of  the  administrative 
organs  of  the  Holy  Synod,  the  Supreme  Ecclesiastical 
Council,  the  eparchial  councils,  and  the  diocesan  and 
parochial  councils,  money  and  provisions  to  aid  the 
starving. 

Desiring  to  cooperate  with  every  possible  effort  to 
aid  the  starving  people  of  the  Volga  region,  we  found 
it  possible  to  permit  the  parochial  councils  and  societies 
to  sacrifice,  for  the  needs  of  the  starving,  the  valuable 
ecclesiastical  ornaments  and  objects  which  were  not 
used  for  the  divine  services,  and  we  announced  this  to 
the  Orthodox  population  on  February  6/19  of  this 
year  by  a  special  proclamation  which  the  authorities 
permitted  to  be  printed  and,  distributed  among  the 
people. 

But  there  followed  violent  attacks  upon  the  spiritual 
leaders  of  the  church  by  the  governmental  newspapers, 
and  then  the  All-Russian  Executive  Committee,  in  a 
rescript  dated  February  13/26,  regarding  aid  to  the 
starving,  ordered  all  valuable  ecclesiastical  objects, 
including  even  the  consecrated  vessels  and  similar 
objects  used  in  celebration  of  the  divine  services,  to  be 
removed  from  the  churches. 

From  the  point  of  view  of  the  church,  such  an  act 
is  sacrilegious,  and  we  esteem  it  our  sacred  duty  to 
make  known  the  view  of  the  church  regarding  the  act 
and  to  inform  our  faithful  children  about  it. 

In  view  of  the  extraordinarily  disastrous  circum¬ 
stances,  we  permitted  the  possibility  of  sacrificing 
church  objects  which  were  not  consecrated  and  were 
not  used  in  the  divine  services.  We  exhort  all  faithful 
children  of  the  church  even  now  to  make  such  sacri¬ 
fices,  desiring  only  that  they  be  the  response  of  a  loving 
heart  to  the  needs  of  their  neighbor,  so  that  they  may 


The  Famine  and  Its  Consequences  177 

actually  manifest  genuine  help  to  our  suffering 
brethren.  But  we  cannot  approve  the  removal  of  the 
consecrated  objects  from  our  churches  even  though 
it  were  by  way  of  a  voluntary  surrender,  for  their  use 
for  any  other  purpose  than  the  divine  service  is  pro¬ 
hibited  by  the  canons  of  the  Ecumenical  church,  and  is 
punishable  as  sacrilege:  in  case  of  laymen,  by  excom¬ 
munication;  clergy,  by  degradation  from  their  sacer¬ 
dotal  rank. 

Given  in  Moscow,  February  15,  1922. 

(The  Apostolic  Canons,  rule  73;  the  “Double”  Council, 
rule  10.) 

The  humble  Tikhon, 
Patriarch  of  Moscow  and  of  all  Russia.12 

But  what  was  it  that  Patriarch  Tikhon  really  per¬ 
mitted  to  be  taken  out,  and  how  much  did  it  amount 
to?  According  to  his  own  statement 13  these  “unconse¬ 
crated  objects  of  value  not  used  in  the  divine  services” 
comprised  such  small  articles  of  ornamentation  as 
chains,  rings,  bracelets,  and  old  silver,  which  were  pre¬ 
sented  for  the  adornment  of  various  icons.  The  patri¬ 
arch  himself  estimated  that  their  value  probably  would 
not  be  great.  The  cause  of  dissatisfaction  on  the  part  of 
the  government  is  therefore  easily  understandable. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  government  justified  its 
act,  in  the  first  place,  by  an  appeal  to  the  legal  status 
of  the  question,  in  accordance  with  which  the  title 
to  all  property  whatsoever,  the  ecclesiastical  among 
the  rest,  was  vested  solely  in  the  government,  which 
permitted,  in  the  case  of  groups  of  believers,  the  use 
of  the  church  buildings  with  their  full  equipment,  not 
as  a  matter  of  necessity  but  as  a  voluntary,  uncon¬ 
strained  concession.  Hitherto,  the  government  had  no 

12  Quoted  from  The  Black  Book,  Appendix  I,  pp.  253-54. 

13  Reported  in  Izvestiya,  March  15,  1922. 


178  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

compelling  need  for  the  valuables  stored  in  the  church 
buildings;  but  the  disastrous  famine  forced  the  hands 
of  the  authorities,  and  they,  in  seeking  to  use  the  valu¬ 
ables  to  save  the  lives  of  citizens,  used  but  what 
belonged  to  the  nation  in  the  first  place.  The  patri¬ 
arch  had  no  right  to  act  as  if  he  had  a  legal  title  to 
dispose  of  the  property,  for  it  did  not  belong  to  the 
church  but  was  merely  used  by  the  church.  His  willful 
ignoring  of  this  patent  state  of  affairs  was  simply 
another  instance  of  failure  on  the  part  of  the  church 
to  acknowledge  the  existing  government  and  its 
laws,  and  as  such  was  an  act  of  opposition  or  rebellion 
against  it. 

That  this  view  was  shared  by  some  parties  even 
within  the  church,  later  events  amply  proved;  as  an 
illustration  of  the  perplexity  into  which  some  believ¬ 
ing  workmen  were  thrown  by  the  action  of  the  patri¬ 
arch,  a  petition,  sent  by  a  group  of  workmen  from  the 
Moscow  firm  Dynamo,  in  which  they  confront  the 
patriarch  with  the  following  appeal,  may  be  quoted : 

The  only  escape  from  our  suffering  is  to  buy  bread 
for  the  starving  with  the  church  gold  and  silver.  That 
gold  and  silver  was  collected  through  the  ages,  and 
is  national  property.  Is  it  not  possible  now  to  turn, 
even  though  only  a  portion  of  that  wealth,  into  bread? 
Does  that  contradict  divine  or  human  laws? 

Most  holy  patriarch,  remember  that  millions  of 
people  who  are  now  about  to  perish  will  die  of  hunger 
with  a  curse  upon  their  lips  against  God  and  the  church 
which  was  unwilling  to  exchange  golden  goblets  for 
wooden  ones;  remember  that  thousands  of  people  who 
shall  escape  death  by  starvation  will  reject  the  church 
and  our  Orthodox  faith,  saying :  Faith  without  works  is 
dead. 

We,  Orthodox  believers,  beg  you  to  listen  to  the 


The  Famine  and  Its  Consequences  179 

voice  of  those  shepherds  who  are  ready  to  give  up 
everything  for  the  starving  brethren,  to  give  heed  to 
the  groans  of  the  millions  of  famished  people,  to  the 
sound  of  their  unspeakable  sufferings  and  their  death- 
groans,  which  are  filling  the  Russian  land.  Come  to 
their  aid !  Convert  the  gold,  silver,  and  precious  stones 
into  bread,  and  save  from  death  those  who  are  starving ! 

Group  of  Believing  Workers  in  the  Establishment 
Dynamo. 

March  23,  1922. 14 

To  all  such  appeals  and  cries,  as  well  as  to  all  the 
criticism  and  denouncements  heaped  upon  the  church, 
the  patriarch  remained  deaf.  Could  he  or  could  not 
he  do  otherwise?  Yes  and  no.  That  depends  upon  the 
disposition,  the  point  of  view,  the  inclination,  the  the¬ 
ology,  the  will  of  him  who  is  to  answer  the  question. 
There  is  no  doubt  that  the  church  in  its  past  history 
repeatedly  brought  its  treasures  to  be  used  in  relieving 
some  extraordinary  national  calamity,  or  passively  per¬ 
mitted  itself  to  be  despoiled  of  its  hoard  when  a  tsarist 
autocrat  came  and  took  it.  The  patriarch  could  have 
permitted  the  measure  on  the  same  ground,  and  with 
far  greater  justification,  but  he  did  not  do  it.  The 
measure  implied  a  certain  degree  of  cooperation  with 
the  hated  government,  and  even  involved  a  certain 
amount  of  positive  help  toward  the  stabilization  of  it, 
by  enabling  it  to  overcome  the  fearful  crisis  into  which 
the  famine  had  plunged  it.  But  by  its  uniformly  anti- 
governmental  policy,  the  church  was  already  com¬ 
mitted  against  any  such  action.  Hence  the  patriarch 
sought  refuge  in  professing  obedience  to  the  ancient 
canons,  which,  as  a  matter  of  undoubted  fact,  could 
be  interpreted  to  support  his  stand.  The  Apostolical 


1  *  Izvestiya,  March  23. 


180  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

Canons,  cited  by  Tikhon,  specifically  ruled:16  “Let  no 
one  convert  to  his  own  use  any  vessel  of  gold  or  silver, 
or  any  veil  which  has  been  sanctified,  for  it  is  contrary 
to  law;  and  if  anyone  be  detected  doing  so,  let  him  be 
excommunicated.”  This  provision  is  amplified  and 
explained  at  great  length  in  rule  10,  of  the  local  Con¬ 
st  an  tinopoli  tan  Sobor  of  862,  known  as  “double,” 
because  it  met  twice,  convoked  for  the  purpose  of  ter¬ 
minating  the  iconoclastic  struggle.16  The  gist  of  this 
quite  intricate  definition  is  that 

whoever  seizes  for  himself,  or  turns  to  another  use  than 
that  of  the  divine  service,  either  the  sacred  chalice, 
or  the  paten,  or  the  spoon,  or  the  revered  altar  cover, 
or  the  cover  for  the  chalice,  or  any  other  consecrated 
and  sacred  vessels  or  robes  found  on  the  altar,  falls 
under  the  sentence  of  deprivation  of  his  rank  .  .  .  and 
whoever  takes  for  himself  or  for  others  vessels  or  robes 
found  within  the  altar,  to  be  used  for  purposes  other 
than  that  for  which  they  wrere  consecrated,  is  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  rule  excommunicated,  and  we  likewise  excom¬ 
municate  him.17 

It  is  plain  from  the  context  of  these  canons  that 
they  contemplated  primarily  the  case  of  stealing  of  the 
sacred  vessels  or  robes  for  private  use,  and  that  the 
eventuality  of  confiscation  of  such  consecrated  valu¬ 
ables  by  a  government  for  purposes  of  saving  a  starv¬ 
ing  population  from  hunger  was  not  even  remotely 
envisaged,  much  less  specified.  But  if  one  wishes  to 
extend  the  letter  of  the  law  to  cover  even  such  cases,  it 

16  The  Apostolical  Canons,  rule  LXXIII;  quoted  in  Nicene  and 
Post-Nicene  Fathers,  Second  Series,  New  York,  1900,  Vol.  XIV,  p. 
598. 

10  Cf.  A.  P.  Lopukhin:  The  Theological  Encyclopaedia,  St.  Peters¬ 
burg,  1907,  Vol.  VIII. 

17  The  Book  of  Rules,  Moscow,  1911,  p.  263.  (In  Church-Sla- 
vonic.) 


The  Famine  and  Its  Consequences  181 

may  be  done  with  a  certain  degree  of  justification.  The 
patriarch  professed  to  feel  obliged  to  interpret  the  rules 
in  such  a  manner,  and  to  obey  them  even  if  the  conse¬ 
quences  were  as  terrible  as  they  were  likely  to  be  under 
the  circumstances.  From  the  patriarch’s  point  of  view, 
he  was  obeying  the  canons,  which  were  held  to  be  the 
supreme  law  in  the  church ;  hence  he  could  not  approve 
the  removal  of  the  church  treasures,  although  he  did 
not  specifically  forbid  it:  he  merely  stated  that  who¬ 
ever  should  act  contrary  to  the  canons  of  the  Ecu¬ 
menical  church  should  be  punished  in  accordance  with 
the  provisions  of  those  canons.  To  those  who  regarded 
every  possible  rule  and  enactment  of  the  ancient  Sobors 
as  absolutely  binding  and  immutable,  and  to  be 
observed  under  all  conditions  whatever,  the  patriarch’s 
course  was  not  only  justified,  but  even  necessary,  pro¬ 
vided  that  his  interpretation  of  the  canons  was  correct. 
This  is  really  the  logical  attitude  of  all  conservative- 
minded  legalists  who  acknowledge  the  absolute  and 
immutable  authority  of  all  ancient  pronouncements  or 
creeds  whatsoever,  and  it  is  the  price  they  have  to  pay 
for  it.  But  the  person  who  holds  that  the  church  of 
to-day  has  the  same  right  to  regulate  its  life  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  the  demands  and  ideals  of  the  times  as  the 
ancient  church  which  formulated  the  canons  had, 
would  probably  differ  from  the  patriarch’s  judgment 
in  the  matter  under  consideration,  and  would  hold  that 
the  patriarch  should  have  followed  the  merciful  and 
humane  course  demanded  by  the  overwhelming  dis¬ 
aster  into  which  the  famine  had  plunged  Russia,  even 
though  by  doing  so  he  had  infringed  the  ancient  rules. 
But  that  would  be  tantamount  to  expecting  that  Tik¬ 
hon  be  not  Tikhon:  he  was  a  conservative,  legalistic- 
minded  Orthodox  hierarch,  and  as  such  could  not  do 


182  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

otherwise  than  he  had  done.  Moreover,  he  had  the 
majority  of  the  church  with  him  in  his  way  of  think¬ 
ing.  Nevertheless,  the  fatal  stand  was  destined  to 
revenge  itself  fearfully  upon  Tikhon  and  the  entire 
church. 

The  state  authorities’  case  was  tolerably  clear:  they 
had  the  law  on  their  side,  and  the  object  of  their 
measures  was  in  the  highest  degree  praiseworthy.  They 
must  have  felt  almost  virtuous  in  adopting  these 
coercive  and  destructive  measures  against  the  church. 
In  addition  to  the  legality  of  their  position,  it  must  be 
presumed  that  they  were  likewise  actuated  by  a  certain 
amount  of  desire  to  damage  the  church  as  much  as 
possible,  and  to  fish  in  the  muddy  waters.  It  must 
never  be  forgotten  that  there  existed  a  tacitly 
acknowledged  state  of  warfare  between  the  two  powers, 
and  that  the  government  was  afflicted  with  no  over¬ 
whelming  scruples  against  making  the  most  of  its 
opportunity.  The  great  chance  which  offered  itself  in 
the  act  of  Tikhon  was  so  excellent  that  it  would  have 
been  an  inexcusable  blunder  from  the  government’s 
point  of  view  had  it  been  neglected.  The  Soviet 
authorities  need  scarcely  ever  be  charged  with  the 
fault  of  neglecting  their  opportunities.  Hence  they 
went  to  work  with  a  zeal  and  zest  which  ruthlessly 
carried  out  the  mandate  ordering  the  removal  of 
ecclesiastical  valuables  from  the  churches.  But  as 
might  be  expected,  the  patriarch’s  proclamation  was 
effective  in  restraining  many  priests  and  bishops  from 
cooperating,  and  a  number  of  them  actively  opposed 
the  measures.  Hence  conflicts  between  the  govern¬ 
mental  authorities  seeking  to  discharge  their  duty,  and 
the  masses  of  people  gathered  to  protect  the  ecclesiasti¬ 
cal  valuables,  were  of  daily  occurrence  throughout  the 


The  Famine  and  Its  Consequences  183 

length  and  breadth  of  Russia,  and  in  many  instances 
resulted  in  bloodshed.  The  infuriated  populace  killed 
a  number  of  officials,  or  again  the  authorities 
would  use  force  against  the  people.  According  to  the 
official  register,  there  occurred  1,414  such  bloody 
encounters,18  among  which  the  most  serious  were 
those  which  took  place  in  the  localities  of  Shuya, 
Ivanovo-Vosnesensk,  Smolensk,  Moscow,  and  especi¬ 
ally  in  Petrograd.  Resistance  to  the  execution  of  the 
decree  of  February  23  was  offered  by  the  Orthodox 
as  well  as  the  Roman  Catholic  authorities,  and  was 
both  active  and  passive.  The  situation  resulted  in 
wholesale  arrests  of  the  offenders,  and  a  great  number 
of  trials  terminated  in  death  penalties. 

As  for  the  total  amount  in  quantity  and  in  value  of 
the  objects  taken  from  the  churches  throughout  Russia, 
it  is  impossible  to  gain  any  exact  information  on  either 
one  of  these  items.  As  always  in  Russia,  the  published 
official  registers  are  confessedly  incomplete,  and  there¬ 
fore  incorrect,  and  in  many  instances  make  no  attempt 
to  be  clear  or  exact.  The  official  estimates  of  the  total 
value  of  the  hoard  are  also  self -contradictory,  so  that 
it  is  impossible  to  speak  of  the  matter  with  any  reason¬ 
able  amount  of  certainty.19  The  total  amount  of  the 
treasures  must  have  been  considerable,  for  any  one  who 
had  seen  the  Russian  cathedrals  and  monasteries  before 
the  war  knows  the  magnificence  and  brilliance  of  the 
ornaments  and  treasures  with  which  these  places  were 
decked  by  the  munificence  of  the  preceding  centuries; 
of  course,  articles  which  were  regarded  as  necessary  for 
the  conduct  of  worship,  such  as  the  chalice,  paten,  star, 

18  The  Black  Book,  p.  288. 

19  Cf.  the  statistical  tables  of  the  itemized  reports  of  confiscations 
in  The  Black  Book,  pp.  269-288. 


184  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

spear,  spoon,  and  the  dish  were  left  in  every  case  in  the 
church,  so  that  it  could  not  be  said  that  the  church 
was  deprived  of  the  very  means  of  worship.  Only 
duplicates  of  such  articles,  presumably,  were  taken  out, 
for  mention  of  them  is  made  in  the  official  register,  and 
even  the  gospels,  bound  in  silver  covers,  are  mentioned 
in  one  instance.  Nevertheless,  no  serious  claim  was 
ever  made  by  the  church  authorities  accusing  the  gov¬ 
ernment  of  a  systematic  attempt  to  deprive  the 
churches  of  the  necessary  instruments  for  the  celebra¬ 
tion  of  religious  services. 

Later,  members  of  some  local  churches  attempted 
to  redeem  articles  which  had  been  taken  from  churches, 
and  thereafter  to  claim  them  as  their  personal  property. 
But  by  the  decree  of  the  Commissariat  of  Justice,  even 
such  articles  were  declared  as  not  belonging  to  the 
particular  individual  who  redeemed  them,  or  the  con¬ 
gregation  from  which  they  were  taken,  but  were  pro¬ 
nounced  the  property  of  the  state  as  they  originally 
were,  and  hence  were  ordered  to  be  registered  as  state 
property  loaned  for  the  use  of  the  particular  local  con¬ 
gregation  concerned.20 

The  trials  of  clergy  and  lay  churchmen  implicated 
in  the  obstruction  of  the  execution  of  the  decree  regard¬ 
ing  the  ecclesiastical  valuables  agitated  the  country 
for  months  after  the  confiscation.  The  most  outstand¬ 
ing  of  these  trials  were  those  of  Petrograd  and  Mos¬ 
cow.  The  trial  in  Petrograd  brought  to  the  bench 
of  the  accused  some  eighty  persons,  among  whom  were 
such  prominent  individuals!  as  the  metropolitan  of 
Petrograd,  Benjamin;  the  president  of  the  Administra¬ 
tion  of  the  Parochial  Councils,  Professor  Novitsky; 

20  Decree  of  June  17,  1922,  No.  359;  quoted  in  The  Revolution  and 
the  Church,  1-3,  1923,  p.  39.  (In  Russian.) 


The  Famine  and  Its  Consequences  185 

two  former  members  of  the  Duma,  and  other  notable 
representatives  of  the  church ;  but  twenty-five  of 
the  eighty  w^ere  released,  upon  examination,  as  not 
guilty.  The  group  was  charged  with  opposition  to  the 
governmental  decree  concerning  the  removal  of 
ecclesiastical  valuables,  and  with  an  unlawful  and 
direct  agitation  among  the  people  for  the  purpose  of 
fomenting  active  opposition  of  the  fanaticized  masses 
to  the  authorities.  The  plan  of  the  church  authorities, 
as  the  prosecuting  attorney  construed  it,  was  to  incite 
the  fanaticism  of  the  masses  by  affirming  that  the 
action  of  the  government  was  against  the  canons  of 
the  church,  and  constituted  sacrilege.  The  plan  was 
instigated  by  patriarch  Tikhon,  and  its  objective  wras 
said  to  be  “to  arouse  unrest  among  the  masses  for  the 
purpose  of  effecting  a  united  front  with  the  inter¬ 
national  bourgeoisie  against  the  Soviet  government.”21 

The  charge  leveled  against  Metropolitan  Benjamin 
was  that  he,  after  receiving  the  patriarchal  proclama¬ 
tion  of  February  28,  presented  the  civil  authorities 
with  an  “ultimatum”  in  which  he  demanded  a  proof 
that  the  government  had  exhausted  all  other  sources  of 
possible  revenue;  a  guarantee  that  the  ecclesiastical 
valuables  would  be  used  exclusively  to  aid  the  famine- 
stricken  ;  and  finally  reserved  a  proviso  that  Patriarch 
Tikhon’s  consent  to  the  proceedings  must  be  secured 
(this  after  the  latter’s  proclamation  of  February  28). 
Receiving  no  answer  from  the  Pomgol,  the  metro¬ 
politan  ordered  the  patriarchal  proclamation  to  be  read 
in  the  parishes,  thus  making  himself  equally  respons¬ 
ible  for  branding  the  action  of  the  government  as 
sacrilegious. 

Thereupon  the  Petrograd  soviet  invited  the  metro- 

21  The  Revolution  and  the  Church,  1-3,  1923,  p.  97. 


186  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

politan  for  an  interview,  and  induced  him  to  abandon 
the  first  and  the  third  point,  while  they  granted  the 
second,  which  permitted  three  church  representatives 
to  oversee  the  work  of  the  Commission  to  Aid  the 
Starving.  But  later  (March  12)  the  metropolitan 
recalled  his  representatives,  making  much  more  strict 
demands  upon  the  authorities.  Thereupon  they 
dropped  the  parleys.  Benjamin  then  issued  a  second 
proclamation  to  the  people,  which  resulted  in  numerous 
and  bloody  disorders.22  Aside  from  this,  the  prosecu¬ 
tion  charged  him  with  a  number  of  specific  acts,  as 
calling  together  councils  of  his  clergy  and  of  the  par¬ 
ishes  to  impart  to  them  instructions  respecting  oppo¬ 
sition  to  the  decree,  making  inciting  speeches,  etc. 

Among  those  who  were  called  to  testify  in  the  trial 
were  members  of  the  Petrograd  clergy,  Krasnitsky  and 
Vvedensky,  both  of  whom  later  became  ringleaders  of 
a  revolutionary  movement  within  the  church,  resulting 
in  a  schism.  Both  bore  testimony  essentially  unfavor¬ 
able  to  the  accused,  especially  to  Metropolitan  Ben¬ 
jamin,  and  this  act  of  theirs  constitutes,  in  the  estima¬ 
tion  of  the  conservative  party  which  came  to  be  known 
under  the  designation  of  “patriarchal,”  the  greatest 
blot  on  the  character  of  these  leaders  of  the  opposing 
faction.  They  had  been  deprived  of  their  office  by  the 
metropolitan,  and  therefore  the  patriarchal  party 
claimed  that  subsequently  they  had  no  right  to  partici¬ 
pate  in  any  ecclesiastical  action.  It  may  be  confidently 
affirmed  that  much  of  the  fierce  hatred  between  the 
parties  is  traceable  to  this  action  of  the  two  priests 
who  testified  against  their  own  ecclesiastical  superior 

38  For  details  of  the  trial,  see  The  Revolution  and  the  Church, 
1-3,  1923. 


The  Famine  and  Its  Consequences  187 

in  a  trial  which  resulted  in  the  imposition  of  the  death 
sentence  upon  him  and  others,  as  well  as  to  the  metro¬ 
politan’s  action  against  them. 

The  trial  finally  resulted,  on  July  6,  1922,  in  a  verdict 
which  imposed  the  death  penalty  upon  ten  of  the 
accused,  and  confiscation  of  their  property.  The  rest 
of  the  accused  were  sentenced  to  hard  labor  or  a  prison 
term  extending  from  seven  days  to  three  years.  But 
the  All-Russian  Central  Executive  Committee  found 
it  possible  to  change  the  sentence  of  the  Petrograd 
revolutionary  tribunal  in  a  number  of  cases,  and  six 
of  the  ten  death  sentences  were  changed  to  impris¬ 
onment;  the  remaining  four,  however  comprising 
Metropolitan  Benjamin,  Professor  Novitsky,  a  former 
member  of  the  Duma,  Schein,  and  Kovsharov,  were 
duly  executed.  They  are  now  regarded  by  the  patri¬ 
archal  party  as  martyrs. 

It  is  interesting  to  observe  that  the  Supreme 
Ecclesiastical  Administration,  a  revolutionary  clerical 
organization  which  had  succeeded  in  seizing  the 
supreme  power  in  the  church,  added  to  the  sentence 
passed  by  the  civil  tribunal  an  ecclesiastical  sentence 
of  their  own:  they  deprived  Metropolitan  Benjamin  of 
his  priestly  and  monastic  rank;  excommunicated  the 
laymen  Novitsky,  Kovsharov,  and  two  others  from  the 
church;  deprived  five  other  high  ecclesiastical  digni¬ 
taries  of  their  priestly  rank  and  office,  and  eight 
priests  of  their  office,  and  passed  milder  ecclesiastical 
sentences  upon  the  rest.2" 

The  Moscow  trial  of  the  Roman  Catholic  dignitaries, 
Archbishop  Tseplyak  and  Vicar-General  Budkevich, 
had  probably  been  a  great  deal  more  widely  advertised 

88  The  Revolution  and  the  Church,  1-3,  1923,  pp.  101-102. 


188  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

in  Western  Europe  and  America  than  the  trials  of  the 
Orthodox  hierarchs.  But  the  charges  against  them 
were  of  essentially  similar  character,  and  likewise 
resulted  in  death  penalties:  both  Tseplyak  and  Bud¬ 
kevich  were  to  be  shot,  five  others  were  sentenced  to 
ten  years’  imprisonment,  and  eight  others  to  a  prison 
term  of  three  years.  Archbishop  Tseplyak  and  Vicar- 
General  Budkevich  appealed  to  the  All-Russian 
Central  Executive  Committee,  which,  it  would  seem, 
under  the  pressure  of  the  deluge  of  protests  which  came 
from  the  western  parts  of  Europe  and  from  America, 
mitigated  Archbishop  Tseplyak’s  sentence  to  imprison¬ 
ment  for  ten  years.  The  death  sentence  passed  upon 
Vicar-General  Budkevich,  however,  was  confirmed  and 
carried  out.  It  may  be  remarked  that  Archbishop 
Tseplyak  was  released  from  prison  within  two  years. 

A  similar  trial  of  the  Orthodox  clerical  leaders  and 
laymen  was  held  in  Smolensk  and  resulted  in  four 
death  sentences,24  besides  lesser  punishments  inflicted 
upon  a  number  of  others.  In  Moscow,  Archbishops 
Arsenius  and  Seraphim,  and  Bishop  Ilarion,  and  almost 
all  the  members  of  the  Supreme  Church  Administra¬ 
tion  and  the  Moscow  Eparchial  Council  were  brought 
to  trial.  As  in  the  previous  processes,  death  sentences 
were  passed  on  eleven  of  the  accused,  while  the  rest 
suffered  from  one  to  five  years’  imprisonment.25  Dur¬ 
ing  the  trial,  so  much  incriminating  evidence  against 
Patriarch  Tikhon  and  Archbishop  Nicander,  his  inti¬ 
mate  colaborer,  was  gathered,  that  finally,  on  May  9, 2  5 
the  Moscow  tribunal  directed  that  Patriarch  Tikhon 
(Citizen  Belavin)  and  Archbishop  Nicander  (Citizen 

24  The  Revolution  and  the  Church,  1-2,  1924,  pp.  39-86. 

26  Izvestiya,  No.  101,  May  10,  1922. 

2B  Izvestiya,  No.  100 


The  Famine  and  Its  Consequences  189 

Fanomenov)  be  brought  to  trial,  and  sent  the  collected 
evidence  against  them  to  the  People’s  Commissariat  of 
Justice. 

The  patriarch  was  charged  with  being  in  direct  com¬ 
munication  with  monarchist  organizations  abroad,  and 
with  counter-revolutionary  activity  directed  toward 
the  overthrow  of  the  existing  regime  at  home ;  besides, 
he  was  indicted  with  the  crime  of  inciting  the  masses 
to  revolt.  Thus  the  net  result  of  the  stand  taken  by  the 
patriarch  in  his  proclamation  of  February  28,  if  we 
may  believe  a  source  which  otherwise  is  none  too 
accurate  in  detail,  was  that  fifty-five  courts  held  two 
hundred  and  thirty-one  trials,  in  which  seven  hundred 
and  thirty-eight  accused  were  tried;  out  of  this  total 
forty- four  were  sentenced  to  death.27 

27  Iona  Brikhnichev:  op.  cit.,  p.  19. 


CHAPTER  VIII 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  SCHISM 

The  beginnings  of  the  movement  which  finally 
resulted  in  the  abolition  of  the  patriarchate  and  the 
outbreak  of  schism  within  the  Russian  church  go  back 
many  decades,  but  its  latter  phase  begins  with  the 
election  of  Patriarch  Tikhon  by  the  Sobor  of  1917.  As 
will  be  remembered,  there  was  a  determined  minority 
in  that  assembly  which  opposed  the  restoration  of  the 
patriarchate  on  the  ground  that  it  was  to  be  used  as  a 
means  for  the  “strong  policy”  of  those  who  wished 
to  retain  for  the  church  all  the  unfair  advantages 
which  its  connection  with  tsarism  had  afforded,  and 
this  minority  regarded  the  election  of  the  patriarch 
as  a  defeat  of  their  program  of  democratization,  and 
indeed  of  socialization,  of  the  church.  Immediately 
upon  Tikhon’s  election,  the  official  organ  of  this  recal¬ 
citrant  group  published  its  manifesto  condemning  the 
action  of  the  Sobor  and  declaring  that  the  sole  reason 
for  the  group’s  continued  stay  within  the  church  was  its 
determination  to  overthrow  the  patriarchate.1  The 
initiator  of  the  movement  was  Archpriest  Shavelsky, 
but  among  the  original  members  was  found  a  man  who 
was  later  to  attain  the  greatest  preeminence  in  the 
movement — Archpriest  Alexander  Vvedensky,  who 

1  Cf.  the  testimony  of  one  of  these  men,  Vvedensky,  The  Church 
and  the  Government ,  p.  110. 


190 


191 


The  Origin  of  the  Schism 

later  became  Metropolitan  Krutitsky  (vicar  of  Mos¬ 
cow).  The  group  instantly  set  about  organizing  oppo¬ 
sition  forces  in  various  cities,  but  its  efforts  met  with 
but  scanty  success. 

The  group  saw  its  chance  for  a  determined  action 
when,  in  retaliation  for  the  publication  of  the  decree 
ordering  the  removal  of  church  treasures,  the  patriarch 
issued  his  famous  pronouncement  threatening  with 
degradation  and  excommunication  any  one  who  should 
obey  the  governmental  decree.  A  number  of  high- 
placed  hierarchs  had,  indeed,  protested  against  the 
patriarchal  stand  from  the  beginning.  For  instance, 
Bishop  Polycarp  of  Lukyanov  wrote:  “It  is  sinful  to 
hold  in  our  sanctuaries  treasures  for  which  we  have 
no  use,  while  in  the  meantime  people  are  suffering 
agonies  of  hunger.”2  A  similar  proclamation  was 
issued  by  Tikhon,  the  archbishop  of  Voronezh.  The 
archbishop  of  Novgorod,  Evdokim,  wrote  several 
letters  to  the  patriarch  and  his  associates,  protesting 
against  their  mistaken  policy.8  This  was  the  oppor¬ 
tunity  for  which  the  Petrograd  group  of  the  progressive 
clergy  had  been  waiting  so  long.  They  had  also  pro¬ 
tested  against  Tikhon’s  attitude  as  early  as  the  fall 
of  1921,  but  their  expostulations  were  treated  as  a 
gesture  which  brought  no  appreciable  results.  They 
had  now  decided  upon  an  energetic  action,  and  on 
March  25  published  the  famous  Letter  of  Twelve 
Priests,  which  may  be  said  to  be  the  beginning  of  the 
schism  which  was  to  rend  the  Russian  church  in  twain. 
This  document,  so  important  in  spite  of  the  rambling 
style,  is  here  given  in  full  as  it  was  printed  in  the 
official  governmental  paper,  the  Izvestiya : 

2  Izvestiya,  March  23,  1922. 

8  Titlinov:  The  New  Church,  Petrograd,  1923,  p.  7.  (In  Russian.) 


192  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

Proclamation  of  a  Group  of  Priests 

The  events  of  the  last  few  weeks  have  settled  beyond 
all  doubt  the  actuality  of  two  divergent  views  in 
church  circles  regarding  the  aid  to  the  starving.  On 
the  one  hand,  there  are  churchmen,  who,  out  of 
principle  (on  account  of  one  or  another  theological  or 
non-theological  consideration)  do  not  desire  to  sacrifice 
any  treasures  for  the  purpose  of  aiding  the  starving. 
On  the  other  hand,  there  is  a  multitude  of  other  church 
people  who  are  ready,  in  order  to  save  the  dying,  to 
make  every  kind  of  sacrifice,  including  the  conversion 
of  the  church  treasures  into  bread  to  feed  the  hunger¬ 
ing  Christ  (for  hungering  Christ  cf.  Matt,  xxv:  31-46). 

Some  members  of  the  hierarchy  of  the  Russian 
church  have  already  authoritatively  spoken  about  the 
necessity  of  coming  to  the  aid  of  the  starving,  with 
all  the  apostolic  zeal,  even  with  the  church  treasures: 
for  instance,  Archbishop  Evdokim,  Archbishop  Sera¬ 
phim,  Archbishop  Mitrophan,  and  a  number  of  other 
hierarchs,  as  well  as  many  archpriests  and  priests. 

Such  wicked  and  provocative  talk4  convicts  the  indi¬ 
viduals  of  the  clerical  order  who  think  in  such  manner 
of  being  traitors  and  masked  enemies  of  the  church. 
God  and  the  public  conscience  will  be  their  judges. 

However,  that  openly  unchristian  feeling  which 
animates  many  church  people,  the  feeling  of  malice, 
heartlessness,  and  slander,  the  confusing  of  the  church 
with  politics,  and  so  forth,  obliges  us  to  make  the  fol¬ 
lowing  declaration: 

It  is  no  secret  for  those  acquainted  with  the  situa¬ 
tion  that  a  certain  element  in  the  church  belongs  to  it 
not  with  their  heart  or  soul,  but  with  their  body  only. 

The  faith  of  Christ  does  not  permeate  their  whole 
being,  does  not  constrain  them  to  act  and  to  live  in 
accordance  with  itself. 

4  l.e.  against  aiding  the  starving  (note  of  the  translator). 


193 


The  Origin  of  the  Schism 

That  is  thought  to  be  the  case  especially  among  that 
number  of  ecclesiastics  among  whom  the  feeling  of 
malice  exists,  and  hence  plainly  witnesses  to  the 
absence  of  Christ.  (John  xviii.  35.) 

One’s  heart  is  pained  by  it,  and  the  soul  weeps. 

Brethren  and  sisters  in  the  Lord! 

People  are  dying!  Old  men  are  dying,  children 
are  dying.  Millions  are  doomed  to  perish.  Have  not 
our  hearts  been  moved  yet? 

If  Christ  be  with  us,  where  then  is  his  love  toward 
all — the  near  and  the  distant,  the  friends  and  the 
enemies?  Where  is  the  love  which,  according  to  God’s 
word,  is  higher  than  the  law?  Where  is  the  love  which 
is  ready  to  overcome  all  obstacles  in  order  to  render 
aid?  For  indeed  it  was  such  a  love  which  the  Lord 
taught  us.  Is  it  impossible  to  be  comprehended? 

The  heartlessness,  the  human  calculation;  of  some 
which  was  manifested  so  sadly  in  connection  with  the 
famine,  constrain  us  to  speak  plainly;  we,  Christians, 
must  conform  our  lives  to  the  commands  of  Christ. 

In  particular,  regarding  the  question  of  church 
treasures  and  the  possibility  of  their  use  for  famine 
relief,  we  assume  that  it  is  our  moral  and  Christian 
duty  to  make  the  sacrifice.  Indeed,  theoretically,  that 
is  what  even  Patriarch  Tikhon  and  Metropolitan  Ben¬ 
jamin  and  other  hierarchs  permitted  us  to  do. 

The  believers  will  willingly  come  to  the  aid  of  the 
government  if  no  violence  be  used  (regarding  which 
official  authorities  assure  us) .  The  believers  are  willing 
to  surrender,  if  need  be,  even  the  sacred  vessels,  if  the 
government  will  permit  the  church  itself  to  feed  the 
starving,  even  though  it  be  done  under  a  strict  govern¬ 
mental  supervision;  the  authorities  have  expressed 
themselves  to  the  effect  that  such  an  arrangement 
would  be  possible. 

Thus  we  shall  be  ready  for  sacrifices,  and  resolutely 
separate  ourselves  from  those  who,  calling  themselves 


194  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

Christians,  in  the  matter  under  consideration  look  upon 
it  differently  and  in  such  wise  follow  and  invite  others 
to  the  path  of  indifference  toward  those  who  are  dying 
of  starvation,  and  even  to  the  culpable,  Christ-for¬ 
bidden  path  of  violence  in  defense  of  the  church 
treasures. 

Churchmen!  An  unfortunate  misunderstanding  of 
that  question  has  separated  us!  We  must,  with  mutual 
love,  with  mutual  respect,  and  burning  with  love  for 
those  of  our  brethren  who  are  perishing  of  starvation, 
help  them  all  even  to  the  surrender  of  our  lives.  That 
is  what  Christ  expects  of  us! 

ARCHPRIEST  PRIEST 


John  Al’binsky 
Alexander  Boyarsky 
Alexander  Vvedensky 
Vladimir  Voskresensky 
Eugene  Zapol’sky 
Michael  Popov 
Paul  Raevsky 


Eugene  Belkov 
Michael  Gremyachevsky 
Vladimir  Krasnitsky 
Nicholas  Syren  sky 
DEACON 

Timothy  Skobelev  b 


The  same  issue  of  the  Izvestiya  (March  29)  pub¬ 
lished  items  announcing  the  protests  of  the  bishop  of 
Volsk,  Job,  and  of  Kursk,  Nikon,  against  the  patri¬ 
arch’s  policy,  and  demanding  the  sale  of  the  church 
treasures  in  aid  of  the  famishing.  The  next  dayf  the 
Izvestiya  8  printed  a  letter  from  Bishop  Antonin,  dated 
the  day  earlier  and  addressed  to  Patriarch  Tikhon,  in 
which  the  latter  was  informed  that  President  Kalinin 
had  requested  the  writer  to  become  a  member  of  the 
governmental  Board  of  Aid  for  the  Starving.  The 
bishop  goes  on  to  say  that  according  to  Kalinin’s 
statement,  “the  main  reason  why  I  was  chosen  for 
the  Kompomgol  was  the  desire  of  the  government  to 
give  to  the  church  people  through  me  a  possibility  of 

6  First  published  in  Krasnaya  Gazeta,  March  25;  reprinted  in 
Izvestiya,  No.  71,  March  29. 

8  No.  72,  March  30. 


195 


The  Origin  of  the  Schism 

supervision  of  the  disposition  of  the  treasures,  their 
exchange  for  currency,  and  the  purchasing  of  bread 
for  the  starving  with  the  money  thus  realized.” 

The  government,  as  was  already  seen,  brought  to 
trial  many  representatives  of  the  church,  the  hier¬ 
archs,  priests,  and  laymen,  for  the  many  riots  and 
bloody  encounters  with  the  officials  attempting  to  carry 
out  the  provisions  of  the  decree  of  February  23. 
According  to  the  testimony  of  Krasnitsky  and  Boyar¬ 
sky  given  at  the  trial  of  Metropolitan  Benjamin  of 
Petrograd,  the  message  which  the  metropolitan  sent 
to  the  parishes,  ordering  the  observance  of  Tikhon’s 
instructions  in  the  matter  of  the  surrender  of  church 
treasures,  was  one  of  the  direct  causes  of  the  reorgani¬ 
zation  of  the  group  of  the  Twelve  for  the  purpose  of 
opposing  Benjamin’s  activity,  because  the  group  was 
afraid  that  it  might  fanaticize  the  “dark”  masses  and 
hurl  them  into  pogroms  and  bloody  riots,  as  it  actually 
did.7  The  trial  of  the  Moscow  clergy  revealed  so 
much  of  what  was  regarded  as  incriminating  evidence 
against  Metropolitan  Tikhon  that  finally  the  Moscow 
tribunal  ordered  that  Patriarch  Tikhon  and  his  chief 
adviser,  Archbishop  Nicander,  be  brought  to  trial.8 
Thereupon  the  patriarch  was  placed  under  home  arrest 
in  the  patriarchal  headquarters  in  the  Troitskoe  pod- 
vor’e,  and  was  thus  prevented  from  carrying  on  the 
work  of  his  chancery.  The  Petrograd  group  of  reform¬ 
ists  now  decided  to  act.  In  the  first  place,  it  issued, 
on  May  13,  a  proclamation  to  “the  believing  sons  of 
the  Orthodox  Church  of  Russia.”  It  is  of  importance, 
especially  for  the  problem  of  the  origin  of  the  schism 
within  the  church  of  Russia,  to  know  exactly  what 

7  Cf.  The  Revolution  and  the  Church,  1923,  1-3,  p.  78. 

8  Izvestiya,  No.  100,  May  9,  1922. 


196  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

the  successive  steps  leading  to  that  disaster  were.  For 
that  reason,  even  at  the  risk  of  encumbering  the  story 
with  lengthy  quotations  from  official  sources,  it  is 
thought  wise  to  give  the  proclamation  in  full: 

Brethren  and  sisters  in  Christ! 

In  the  course  of  the  last  few  years,  in  accordance 
with  the  will  of  God,  without  which  nothing  in  the 
world  comes  to  pass,  the  Workers-Peasants’  govern¬ 
ment  came  into  power  in  Russia. 

It  took  upon  itself  the  task  of  liquidating  the  heavy 
consequences  of  the  World  War,  a  struggle  with  the 
famine,  epidemics,  and  the  remaining  disorders  of  the 
governmental  life. 

The  church,  in  the  meantime,  remained  aloof  from 
this  great  struggle  for  truth  and  the  well-being  of 
humanity. 

The  heads  of  the  church  were  on  the  side  of  the 
enemies  of  the  people. 

This  became  manifest,  in  so  far  as  every  current 
incident  was  accompanied  by  a  counter-revolutionary 
uprising  within  the  church.  Such  things  happened 
more  than  once.  At  the  present  time,  similar  sad 
occurrences  have  taken  place  before  our  own  eyes,  in 
the  matter  of  converting  the  church  treasures  into 
bread  for  the  starving.  Such  an  act  should  have  been 
an  occasion  for  a  joyous  manifestation  of  love  for  the 
perishing  brother,  but  it  was  converted  into  a  con¬ 
spiracy  against  the  government. 

It  resulted  in  bloodshed.  Blood  was  shed  that  the 
hungering  Christ  might  not  be  aided. 

By  the  refusal  to  help  the  starving,  churchmen  were 
attempting  to  bring  about  the  overthrow  of  the  govern¬ 
ment.  The  proclamation  of  Patriarch  Tikhon  became 
the  standard  around  which  rallied  the  counter-revolu¬ 
tionists,  outwardly  disguised  in  ecclesiastical  garb. 

But  the  wider  masses  of  the  people  and  the  majority 


197 


The  Origin  of  the  Schism 

of  the  rank  and  file  of  the  clergy  did  not  heed  their 
call.  The  popular  conscience  condemned  those  guilty 
of  shedding  blood,  and  the  death  of  those  who  suc¬ 
cumbed  to  the  famine  falls  with  a  heavy  reproach  upon 
those  who  wished  to  exploit  the  national  calamity  for 
their  own  political  ends. 

We,  the  undersigned  clergy  of  the  Orthodox  church, 
representing  the  opinions  of  wide  ecclesiastical  circles, 
condemn  the  actions  of  those  hierarchs  and  those  pas¬ 
tors  who  are  guilty  of  organizing  opposition  to  the  gov¬ 
ernmental  authorities  in  the  matter  of  aiding  the 
starving  and  in  other  undertakings  for  the  good  of  the 
workers. 

The  church  by  its  very  essence  should  represent 
a  society  of  love  and  truth,  and  not  a  political  organi¬ 
zation,  or  a  counter-revolutionary  party. 

We  consider  it  necessary  that  a  local  Sobor  be  called 
without  delay  for  a  trial  of  those  who  are  guilty  of  the 
ruin  of  the  church,  as  well  as  to  order  the  ecclesiastical 
government,  and  to  establish  normal  relations  with 
the  Soviet  authorities.  The  civil  war  which  is  carried 
on  by  the  supreme  administration  against  the  govern¬ 
ment  must  be  stopped. 

Every  faithful  and  loving  son  of  the  church  will 
doubtless  approve  our  petition  with  which  we  appealed 
to  the  government  authorities,  asking  to  grant  us 
the  permission  to  call  a  local  Sobor  speedily  for  the 
purpose  of  ordering  the  church  and  pacifying  the 
national  life. 


Bishop  Antonin 

Representatives  of  the 
progressive  clergy 

ofPetrograd:  Priest  Vladimir  Krasnitsky 

Archpriest  Alexander  Vvedensky 
Priest  Eugene  Belkov 
Psalm-singer  Stephen  Stadnik 


198  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

of  Moscow :  Priest  Ivan  Borisov 

Priest  Vladimir  Bylkov 

of  Sarotov :  Archpriest  Rusanov 

Archpriest  Ledovsky 

May  13,  1922.* 

This  was  a  most  important  step  which  the  group 
had  taken,  for  it  defined  essentially  the  program  of  the 
party,  as  it  was  later,  step  by  step,  realized.  But  the 
group  did  not  rest  content  with  mere  proclamations; 
it  sent  a  delegation,  consisting  of  the  archpriest 
Vvedensky,  the  priest  Belkov,  and  the  psalm-singer 
Stadnik,  to  interview  the  patriarch  in  Moscow.  Upon 
their  arrival  in  Moscow,  they  were  joined  by  Priest 
Krasnitsky,  who  was  there  on  private  business,  and  by 
Priest  Kalinovsky,  and  together  they  sought  audience 
with  the  patriarch ;  they  were  received  by  him  on  May 
12.  Using  as  their  basis  the  unhappy  outcome  of  the 
Moscow  trial,  which  had  just  been  concluded  (May  9), 
and  which  pronounced  eleven  death  sentences  upon 
those  found  guilty  of  opposing  the  decree  regarding  the 
removal  of  church  treasures,  they  held  the  patriarch 
morally  responsible  for  the  disaster.  It  was  the  opinion 
of  the  group  that  the  patriarchal  proclamation  of  Feb¬ 
ruary  28  provoked  renewed  outbreaks  of  hostility 
against  the  government. 

Priest  Krasnitsky,  who  seems  to  have  been  the  chief 
spokesman  of  the  party,  then  confronted  the  patriarch 
with  a  resume  of  what  he  regarded  as  Tikhon’s  counter¬ 
revolutionary  measures,  among  which  he  enumerated 
( 1 )  the  anathema  pronounced  against  the  government 
on  January  19,  1918,  upon  the  occasion  of  the  first 
attempt  to  put  into  practice  the  decree  nationalizing 

0  Izvestiya,  No.  106,  May  14,  1922. 


199 


The  Origin  of  the  Schism 

all  property  in  Russia;  (2)  the  patriarchal  instructions 
of  February  15,  1918,  advising  the  priests  to  secrete  the 
church  property  so  that  it  could  not  be  found  by  the 
commissioners,  and  also  advising  the  organization  of 
brotherhoods  for  the  defense  of  church  property;  (3) 
according  to  Krasnitsky’s  account,  these  instructions 
resulted  in  1,414  bloody  encounters  of  the  people  with 
the  governmental  authorities;  (4)  furthermore,  the 
spokesman  of  the  progressive  group  affirmed  that  one 
of  the  patriarch’s  deeds  of  counter-revolutionary 
import  was  his  sending  to  the  former  tsar,  Nicholas 
Romanov,  who  was  at  the  time  imprisoned  in  Ekater¬ 
inburg,  the  patriarchal  blessing  along  with  consecrated 
wafers,  which  commission  was  performed  by  Bishop 
Hermogen;  (5)  moreover,  the  patriarch  was  charged 
with  the  guilt  of  ordaining  and  placing  in  high,  influ¬ 
ential  positions  a  large  number  of  individuals  generally 
known  to  be  strong  partisans  and  protagonists  of  the 
old  monarchist  regime;  (6)  and  finally,  the  patriarch 
was  accused  of  having  converted  the  church  into  a 
political  organization,  in  which  the  most  determined 
monarchist  elements,  under  cover  of  their  spiritual 
concerns,  were  attempting  to  overthrow  the  Soviet 
regime. 

On  the  basis  of  these  charges,  and  stressing  the 
present  anarchy  prevailing  in  the  church  as  a  result 
of  the  patriarch’s  policies,  the  group  demanded  the 
immediate  issue  of  a  call  for  a  national  Sobor,  for  the 
purpose  of  deciding  upon  and  inaugurating  new 
policies  for  the  church,  and  the  patriarch’s  complete 
retirement  from  the  exercise  of  his  authority  until  the 
final  settlement  of  the  question  by  the  Sobor.10 

According  to  the  version  of  Vvedensky,  who  later 

10  Vvedensky,  an  eye-witness,  in  op.  cit.,  pp.  248-49. 


200  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

described  further  details  of  the  interview,  the  patri¬ 
arch,  after  some  hesitation,  consented  to  the  demands 
of  the  group,  with  these  words:  “I  have  not  sought 
the  patriarchal  office,  and  it  weighs  me  down  like  a 
cross.  I  shall  be  glad  if  the  future  Sobor  should 
release  me  from  the  patriarchate,  and  at  present  I  shall 
retire  from  the  administration  of  the  church,  and  shall 
transfer  my  authority  to  the  eldest  of  the  hierarchs.”  11 
Thereupon,  he  wrote  two  letters:  one  to  Kalinin,  presi¬ 
dent  of  the  All-Russian  Central  Executive  Committee, 
acquainting  him  with  his  intention  to  transfer  the 
patriarchate  to  another  hierarch;  and  the  other  to 
Metropolitan  Agathangel  of  Yaroslavl,  in  which  he 
appointed  him  his  substitute,  and  asked  him  to  come  to 
Moscow  to  take  charge  of  his  new  duties.12  But  before 
the  designated  hierarch  could  come,  the  administration 
of  the  church  ceased  to  function;  thus  for  a  time  the 
patriarchal  chancery  was  closed.  It  was  this  circum¬ 
stance  which  prompted  a  few  members  of  the  delega¬ 
tion  to  have  another  interview  with  the  patriarch, 
which  they  obtained  on  May  18,  when  they  presented 
him  with  a  written  statement  of  an  astoundingly  dar¬ 
ing  request — considering  what  strained  relationships 
existed  between  themselves  and  the  patriarch — that 
they  themselves  be  appointed  to  care  for  the  adminis¬ 
tration  of  the  chancery  until  Agathangel  should  arrive. 
This  curious  document  is  of  the  greatest  importance, 
for  it  really  represents  the  basis  of  the  assumption  of 
the  supreme  authority  in  the  church  of  Russia  on  the 
part  of  the  Living  Church  group,  and  consequently  of 

11  Quoted  in  The  Messenger  of  the  Synod,  No.  3,  1925;  p.  7.  (In 
Russian.) 

12  The  Living  Church,  the  official  organ  of  the  Living  Church 
group,  May  23,  1922;  also  No.  3,  1925;  also  Izvestiya,  No.  108,  May 
17,  1922. 


The  Origin  of  the  Schism  201 

the  schism.  It  is,  therefore,  well  worth  while  to  have 
it  presented  in  full: 

To  his  Holiness, 

the  Most  Holy  Patriarch  Tikhon: 

In  view  of  the  abdication  of  your  holiness  from  the 
administration  of  the  church  until  the  time  of  the 
calling  of  the  Sobor,  and  of  your  transfer  of  authority 
to  one  of  the  elder  hierarchs,  the  church  remains  at 
present,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  without  any  kind  of 
administration. 

That  circumstance  show  itself  extraordinarily  detri¬ 
mental  to  the  course  of  general  church  life,  and 
especially  in  Moscow,  exciting  thereby  a  great  disturb¬ 
ance  of  minds. 

We,  the  undersigned,  have  petitioned  the  govern¬ 
mental  authorities  for  permission  to  open  the  chancery 
of  your  holiness  and  start  its  functioning. 

By  the  present  letter  we  filially  ask  for  your  holiness, 
blessing  upon  it,  in  order  that  the  harmful  cessation 
in  the  administration  of  church  affairs  be  terminated. 

Your  substitute,  then,  upon  his  arrival,  will  immedi¬ 
ately  enter  upon  the  discharge  of  his  duties. 

For  these  labors  in  the  chancery,  until  such  time 
as  the  final  formation  of  the  administration  under  the 
headship  of  your  substitute  be  accomplished,  we  tem¬ 
porarily  engage  bishops  now  at  liberty  in  Moscow. 

The  unworthy  servants  of  your  holiness. 

Archpriest  Alexander  Vvedensky 
Priest  Eugene  Belkov 
Priest  Sergei  Kalinovsky  1  * 

This  memorable  conference  took  place  in  the  patri¬ 
archal  headquarters  in  the  Troitskoe  podvor’e;  the 
room  in  which  the  scene  was  enacted  is  a  large,  mid- 

14  Quoted  from  the  official  organ  of  the  Holy  Synod,  The  Messen¬ 
ger,  No.  2,  1925,  p.  18. 


202  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

Victorian  chamber,  rather  shabbily  furnished,  with 
ancient  carved  and  upholstered  sofa  and  chairs,  and 
two  tables  covered  with  old-fashioned  table-covers. 
The  walls  are  adorned  with  a  few  oil  paintings  repre¬ 
senting  ancient  patriarchs.  From  the  windows  one 
may  look  into  a  garden,  at  present  used  for  amusement 
purposes  by  a  communistic  organization.  It  is  very 
difficult  to  realize  that  this  utterly  ordinary-looking 
room  was  the  scene  of  some  of  the  most  important 
episodes  in  modern  Russian  church  history. 

Upon  being  presented  with  the  above-quoted  docu¬ 
ment,  the  patriarch  continued  in  earnest  conference 
with  the  group  for  an  hour  and  a  half,  but  finally 
yielded  to  the  request,  seeing  the  advisability  and  use¬ 
fulness  of  the  action.  Had  he  foreseen  what  use  would 
be  made  of  his  consent!  But  at  the  time  “it  was  hid 
from  his  eyes”;  it  is  difficult  to  attach  any  blame  to 
him  for  not  foreseeing  the  future,  as  the  prophetic  gift 
is  not  one  generally  vouchsafed  to  human  beings. 

Deciding  to  grant  the  petition,  the  patriarch  wrote 
at  the  top  of  the  same  document  upon  which  the 
petition  was  presented  to  him  his  own  resolution 
regarding  the  matter: 

May  5/18,  1922.  The  persons  named  below  are 
ordered  to  take  over  and  transmit  to  the  Most  Rev¬ 
erend  Metropolitan  Agathangel,  upon  his  arrival  in 
Moscow,  and  with  the  assistance  of  Secretary  Nume- 
rov,  the  synodical  business;  (administration  of)  16  the 
Moscow  eparchy  (to  be  entrusted)  15  to  the  Most 
Reverend  Innocent,  bishop  of  Klinsk,  and  before  his 
arrival  to  the  Most  Reverend  Leonid,  bishop  of  Ver- 
nensk,  with  the  assistance  of  the  departmental  chief 
Nevsky. 


16  Added  by  the  translator. 


203 


The  Origin  of  the  Schism 

For  the  hastening  of  my  departure  and  the  lodging 
in  the  patriarchal  residence  of  the  Most  Reverend 
Agath  angel,  I  beg  that  Archimandrite  Anempo- 
dist  (Alekseev)  be  given  leave. 

P.  Tikhon16 

This  presentation  of  the  essential  events  of  the 
memorable  transaction,  so  frought  with  meaning  for 
the  immediate  future  of  the  church,  is  fully  confirmed 
by  the  patriarch’s  own  version  of  the  story,  which  he 
published  immediately  upon  his  release  from  prison. 
He  described  the  events  as  follows: 

On  May  18  of  the  previous  year,  during  our  imprison¬ 
ment  in  the  Troitskoe  podvor’e,  the  priests  Vvedensky, 
Belkov,  and  Kalinovsky  (who  but  a  short  time  pre¬ 
viously  had  renounced  the  holy  orders)  visited  us, 
and  under  the  pretext  of  caring  for  the  welfare  of 
the  church,  presented  us  with  a  written  statement, 
wherein  they  complained  that  in  consequence  of  the 
existing  circumstances,  church  business  remained  unat¬ 
tended  to.  They  begged  us  to  intrust  our  chancery  to 
them,  in  order  that  they  might  properly  classify  the 
correspondence  received.  Considering  it  a  useful 
measure,  we  yielded  to  their  solicitation  and  inscribed 
their  petition  with  the  following  resolution:  [Then 
follows  the  resolution  given  above,  but  omitting  the 
last  unimportant  paragraph.] 17 

From  the  foregoing  reports,  this  much,  at  least,  is 
clear:  the  interview  of  the  delegation  of  the  progres¬ 
sive  clergy  succeeded  in  inducing  the  patriarch  tempo¬ 
rary  to  surrender  his  authority  in  favor  of  one  of  the 
elder  hierarchs,  until  the  Sobor  which  the  acting 

18  Quoted  from  The  Messenger,  No.  2,  1925,  p.  18. 

17  The  Public  Proclamation,  July  15,  1923. 


204  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

patriarch  was  to  convene  should  deliberate  upon  the 
new  situation  and  in  the  light  of  the  facts  as  then  dis¬ 
covered  should  order  the  administration  and  policy  of 
the  church  anew.  Having  induced  the  patriarch  to 
take  that  momentous  step,  the  group  then  applied  to 
the  government  for  permission  to  reopen  the  patri¬ 
archal  chancery,  which  by  reason  of  Tikhon’s  voluntary 
surrender  of  active  direction  of  affairs,  as  well  as  by 
reason  of  his  arrest,  was  not  functioning  at  the  time; 
at  the  same  time,  the  group  asked  the  patriarch’s 
approval  of  this  step,  urging  upon  him  the  enormity 
of  confusion  which  would  ensue  should  the  adminis¬ 
tration  of  the  chancery  not  function  for  a  long  time. 
They  expressly  stated  that  this  arrangement  should 
be  only  temporary,  and  clearly  specified  that,  upon  the 
arrival  of  the  locum  tenens,  they  themselves  would 
retire  from  the  duties  thus  entrusted  to  them.  Finally, 
they  proposed  to  seek  the  aid  of,  and  augment  their 
own  forces  by  adding  to  their  numbers,  the  bishops 
“now  at  liberty  in  Moscow,”  without  naming  any  par¬ 
ticular  individual;  but  as  it  turned  out,  they  secured 
the  cooperation  of  Bishop  Antonin,  the  old  stormy 
petrel  of  the  Russian  church,  who  had  long  before 
been  retired  because  he  became  a  persona  non  grata 
with  the  old  bureaucratic  Holy  Synod,  when  after  the 
tsarist  grant  of  the  “representative”  government 
Antonin  refused  to  designate  the  tsar  in  the  liturgy  any 
longer  as  “autocrat.”  To  all  this  the  patriarch  con¬ 
sented,  giving  at  the  same  time  general  instructions 
regarding  the  procedure,  from  which  it  is  abundantly 
clear  that  the  contemplated  interim  arrangement  was 
regarded  by  him  as  of  but  short  duration.  Of  course,  it 
had  never  occurred  to  him  what  might  happen  if  the 
arrangements  decided  upon  for  some  reason  miscarried; 


205 


The  Origin  of  the  Schism 

certainly  he  had  not  anticipated  the  use  to  which  his 
permission  was  to  be  put. 

Events  now  succeeded  each  other  with  swiftness;  the 
next  day  after  the  interview  with  the  progressive 
group,  Patriarch  Tikhon  left  the  Troitskoe  podvor’e 
and  removed  to  the  Donskoy  Monastery,  on  the  out¬ 
skirts  of  Moscow,  which  was  to  become  his  head¬ 
quarters  till  the  time  of  his  death.  On  May  20,  the 
Izvestiya  reported  that  the  progressive  group,  acting 
on  the  basis  of  the  patriarchal  permission  to  take  over 
the  chancery,  moved  into  the  former  patriarchal  resi¬ 
dence.  But  they  did  more  than  that:  without  any 
patriarchal  permission,  they  organized  themselves  into 
the  Provisional  Supreme  Ecclesiastical  Administra¬ 
tion,  consisting  of  Bishop  Antonin,  the  old-time  leader 
of  the  progressives,  and  Bishop  Leonid,  the  only  one 
of  the  number  mentioned  by  Patriarch  Tikhon  in  his 
instructions,  whom  he  had  appointed  as  temporary 
administrator  of  the  Moscow  eparchy;  besides  these, 
the  new  Administration  comprised  the  already  well- 
known  leaders  of  opposition  to  the  patriarchal  policies, 
Vvedensky,  Krasnitsky,  Kalinovsky,  and  Belkov,  to 
whom  were  added  Deacon  Skobelev,  and  a  layman, 
Khlebnikov.18  The  following  day,  the  Izvestiya  again 
reported  the  affair,  adding  to  the  names  already  men¬ 
tioned  those  of  Archpriest  Al’binsky  and  Priest  Vosk¬ 
resensky.  The  new  Supreme  Ecclesiastical  Administra¬ 
tion  then,  with  Bishop  Antonin  at  its  head,  entered  the 
former  patriarchal  headquarters  as  new  master  of  the 
situation,  to  inaugurate  an  era  in  the  Russian  church 
even  stormier  and  more  fruitful  of  inner  conflicts  than 
the  immediate  past  had  been. 

The  new  Administration  appointed  Bishop  Leonid 

*•  Izvestiya,  No.  Ill,  May  20,  1922. 


206  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

temporary  metropolitan  of  Moscow,  and  drew  the 
former  court  chaplain,  Protopresbyter  Lyubimov,  into 
its  service,  detailing  him  for  the  organization  of  rela¬ 
tions  with  the  monasteries.  It  likewise  announced  its 
assumption  of  the  supreme  office  in  the  church  till  the 
final  settlement  of  the  new  ecclesiastical  policy  by  the 
Sobor,  intimating  at  the  same  time  that  this  body 
was  to  be  called  as  early  as  the  month  of  August  of 
the  current  year.  It  is  apparent,  therefore,  that 
originally  the  group  did  not  expect  to  stay  long  in  the 
office  thus  procured  by  them,  and  were  not  so  hostile 
to  Tikhon  as  they  became  later,  for  they  continued  to 
recite  the  name  of  the  patriarch  in  the  liturgical  serv¬ 
ices  for  two  months  longer.19 

But  why  did  Metropolitan  Agathangel  delay  his 
coming?  A  pretty  story  regarding  this  question  was 
told  by  Protopresbyter  Krasotin  to  the  delegates  of 
the  third  Sobor  (1925),  namely,  that  about  a  month 
after  Agathangel  was  commissioned  to  the  office  of 
acting  patriarch,  he,  Krasotin,  was  sent  to  Yaroslavl 
as  a  delegate.  He  visited  the  metropolitan,  and  upon 
finding  him  rather  unconcerned  about  the  task 
entrusted  to  him  by  Tikhon,  Krasotin  expressed  his 
surprise  at  the  fact;  thereupon  the  metropolitan  gave 
him  a  strict  lecture,  the  burden  of  which  was  that  it 
was  none  of  the  priest's  business  what  he,  a  metropoli¬ 
tan,  was  doing  or  not  doing.20  But  the  patriarchal 
party  tells  quite  a  different  story,  which  certainly 
appears  much  more  credible :  Metropolitan  Agathangel 
could  not  assume  the  office  to  which  he  was  called  by 
the  patriarch,  because  the  government  refused  him  the 
necessary  permission  to  leave  Yaroslavl  and  come  to 

19  Article  by  Rostovtsev :  “Conference  of  the  Group  Living 
Church,”  in  The  Living  Church,  No.  10,  Oct.  1,  1922,  p.  7. 

20  The  Messenger ,  1925,  p.  14. 


207 


The  Origin  of  the  Schism 

Moscow.  It  is  furthermore  suggested,  although  with¬ 
out  any  proof,  that  the  Supreme  Ecclesiastical  Admin¬ 
istration  was  actively  concerned  in  the  action  of  the 
government.  At  any  rate,  Agath  angel  could  not  come 
to  Moscow,  and  shortly  afterwards  was  arrested  on 
charges  of  counter-revolutionary  activity,  and  exiled 
to  the  Narymsky  territory.  Under  those  circumstances, 
he  published  a  proclamation  in  which  he  stated  that 
he  was  prevented  from  exercising  the  duties  of  the 
office  laid  upon  him  by  Patriarch  Tikhon,  and  in  virtue 
of  his  authority  as  patriarchal  substitute,  he  empow¬ 
ered  each  bishop,  archbishop,  and  metropolitan  inde¬ 
pendently  to  rule  his  diocese  in  accordance  with  the 
canonical  rules  until  such  a  time  as  either  he  or 
Patriarch  Tikhon  should  be  free  to  resume  the  exercise 
of  the  supreme  authority. 

Bishop  Innocent  was  likewise  detained  from  assum¬ 
ing  the  duties  to  which  the  patriarchal  resolution  had 
called  him.  Thus  out  of  all  the  persons  selected 
by  Tikhon  to  assume  the  supreme  administration  of 
the  church  in  his  stead,  only  one  actually  served,  and 
that  was  Bishop  Leonid,  who  administered  the  Moscow 
eparchy.  That  the  development  of  affairs  which  actu¬ 
ally  took  place  was  not  foreseen  by  Tikhon  need  not  be 
stressed;  and  that  had  he  had  the  least  inkling  as  to 
the  group  of  people  who  were  to  assume  power  in  the 
church  by  reason  of  his  innocent  and  harmless  per¬ 
mission  “to  open  the  chancery  and  carry  on  its 
work/’  it  is  certain  that  he  would  not  have  assented 
to  the  request.  There  is  no  doubt  whatever  that 
he  regarded  the  entire  assumption  of  administra¬ 
tive  power  on  the  part  of  the  Living  Church  group  as 
a  deceit  of  himself  and  an  usurpation  of  his  authority. 

About  the  first  thing  which  the  new  Supreme 


208  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

Ecclesisatical  Administration  did — let  it  be  said  to  its 
credit — was  to  issue  an  appeal  to  the  Soviet  authorities 
for  a  merciful  dealing  with  those  members  of  the  Mos¬ 
cow  clergy  and  hierarchs  who  had  been  recently  sen¬ 
tenced  to  the  death  penalty  for  obstructing  the  execu¬ 
tion  of  the  decree  concerning  the  church  treasures. 
“Coming  forward,”  the  appeal  reads,  “sincerely  to  serve 
the  Russian  people  in  the  matter  of  pacifying  those 
who  are  hostile,  and  unifying  all  honorable  citizens  for 
the  regeneration  of  our  native  land,  we,  the  under¬ 
signed,  present  you  with  a  fervent  appeal  for  mercy 
upon  those  of  the  Moscow  clergy  who  were  sentenced 
to  death.21  This  was  a  noble  thing  to  do,  provided 
that  it  was  not  a  mere  ad  hominem  trick;  but,  alas,  in 
the  partisan  passions  which  animate  the  two  chief 
parties  within  the  Russian  church  such  incidents  are 
all  too  often  forgotten.  A  similar  appeal  was  addressed 
through  the  Supreme  Ecclesiastical  Administration  to 
the  governmental  authorities  on  July  9,  when  Nicholas 
Sobolev  was  created  archbishop  of  Petrograd;  this 
appeal  petitioned  for  mercy  in  dealing  with  the  Petro¬ 
grad  group,  among  whom  was  Metropolitan  Benjamin, 
who  were  pronounced  guilty  of  inciting  the  masses  to 
resistance  in  connection  with  the  decree  regarding 
the  church  treasures,  and  were  in  consequence  sen¬ 
tenced  to  death.  Some  of  these  sentences  were  actu¬ 
ally  changed  to  milder  ones,  but  undoubtedly  there 
were  other  and  more  powerful  reasons  for  doing  so. 

Nevertheless,  the  group  soon  came  to  the  point  where 
it  could  successfully  ignore  all  finer  shades  of  the  trans¬ 
action  with  the  patriarch  by  virtue  of  which  it  was 
given  the  initial  opportunity  to  move  into  the  patri- 

21  Dated  May  17,  and  reprinted  in  The  Living  Church,  No.  2,  May 
23,  1922. 


209 


The  Origin  of  the  Schism 

archal  chancery.  It  would  be  extremely  difficult  to 
hold  that  these  men  were  totally  ignorant  of  the  real 
intentions  of  the  patriarch  as  to  the  scope  of  activity 
which  Tikhon  had  in  mind  when  he  entered  into  the 
above-described  arrangement  with  them.  But  they  do 
not  seem  to  have  suffered  from  overscrupulousness, 
and  soon  began  to  affirm  stoutly  that  they  were  the 
rightful  and  canonical  possessors  of  the  supreme 
administrative  office  by  reason  of  their  appointment  to 
the  position  by  the  patriarch  himself.  They  loudly 
claimed,  in  print  as  well  as  in  their  public  speeches, 
that  they  were  Tikhon’s  successors.  Bishop  Antonin 
is  reported  to  have  declared  on  one  occasion,  when  it 
was  suggested  that  the  program  of  the  group  should 
receive  Tikhon’s  approval:  “He  would  not  approve  any 
of  our  reforms.  Besides,  since  Patriarch  Tikhon  trans¬ 
mitted  his  authority  to  the  Supreme  Ecclesiastical 
Administration  without  any  reservation,  we  have  no 
necessity  now  to  run  after  him  to  receive  from  him 
what  he  no  longer  possesses.  We  must  definitely 
separate  ourselves  from  the  old  ecclesiastical  anti¬ 
social  policy.”22 

It  is  this  very  thing  which  became  the  bone  of 
contention  between  the  two  parties  within  the 
church,  and  ultimately  led  to  a  schism.  On  the  one 
hand,  certain  leaders,  together  with  the  masses, 
held  that  the  patriarchal  authority  was  usurped  by  a 
designing  group  of  ecclesiastical  revolutionaries,  who, 
by  wrenching  the  meaning  and  stretching  the  letter  of 
Tikhon’s  resolution,  uncanonically  seized  the  supreme 
power;  on  the  other  hand,  the  Living  Church  group 
retorted  that  they  were  carrying  out,  practically  to  the 
letter,  the  instructions  given  them  by  the  patriarch: 

22  Izvestiya,  No.  132,  June  16,  1922. 


210  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

he  had  appointed  them  temporarily  in  charge  of  the 
chancery,  till  such  a  time  when  his  substitute  should 
arrive  in  Moscow,  and  the  substitute  was  to  hold  office 
till  the  final  adjudication  and  settlement  of  the  whole 
matter  by  the  Sobor.  Through  no  fault  of  their  own, 
the  progressives  claimed,  both  Metropolitan  Agath- 
angel  and  Bishop  Innocent  found  it  impossible  to 
come  to  assume  their  offices,  and  until  they  came,  the 
group  was  right  in  holding  the  supreme  power;  they 
professed  the  intention  of  calling  the  Sobor  speedily, 
and  then  of  surrendering  their  power  to  that  body.  It 
must  be  owned  that  there  are  certain  elements  of 
truth  in  both  these  claims  which  give  strength  to  both 
parties.  But  it  would  appear,  on  the  basis  of  the  data 
presented,  that  the  only  solid  basis  of  the  new  Supreme 
Ecclesiastical  Administration’s  claim  is  the  revolu¬ 
tionary  right  of  overthrowing  by  force  any  organiza¬ 
tion  which  refuses  to  reform  itself  in  accordance  with 
the  demands  of  the  times,  and  by  its  persistent  oppo¬ 
sition  and  obstinate  hostility  threatens  to  bring 
destruction  upon  the  body  which  it  purports  to  govern. 
But  to  rest  its  case  upon  the  legalistic  canonicity  of 
the  particular  process  whereby  the  group  acquired  its 
power  would  appear  like  a  deliberate  courting  of  defeat 
and  a  rejection  of  its  claims  as  a  whole.  The  legal 
basis  is  quite  obviously  insecure  and  dubious  for  such 
an  organization  as  the  Living  Church  to  resort  to,  for 
the  process  whereby  their  power  was  attained  was  not, 
and  cannot  be  argued  into  being,  a  canonical  one.  This 
does  not  mean  that  it  was  not  at  all  valid;  that  need 
not  necessarily  be  true.  A  merely  canonical  basis  may 
in  itself  be  weaker  and  of  less  real  consequence  than 
a  sound  revolutionary  one,  provided  that  the  revolu¬ 
tion  is  really  inevitable  for  saving  the  organization  con- 


211 


The  Origin  of  the  Schism 

cerned  from  utter  destruction.  But  even  if  the  revolt 
against  the  policies  of  Patriarch  Tikhon  be  justified 
on  revolutionary  grounds,  on  their  ethical  side  the 
measures  adopted  in  the  attempt  to  justify  the  process 
left  much  to  be  desired.  Had  they  claimed  nothing  but 
the  right  to  revolution  under  conditions  which  threat¬ 
ened  to  overthrow  the  organization  which  the  exist¬ 
ing  authorities  were  sworn  to  preserve,  they  would 
have  been  entitled  to  the  same  kind  of  justification 
which  all  similar  revolutions  are  accorded. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  a  certain  amount  of  recognition 
was  accorded  the  new  administration  even  by  the 
representatives  of  the  hierarchy:  thus  in  a  meeting  of 
the  Moscow  diocese,  held  on  May  26,  the  establish¬ 
ment  of  the  new  authorities  was  approved  “as  having 
been  called  forth  by  a  canonical  necessity.”  More¬ 
over,  Sergei,  metropolitan  of  Vladimir,  Evdokim,  arch¬ 
bishop  of  Nizhni  Novgorod,  and  Seraphim,  archbishop 
of  Kostroma,  likewise  accorded  it  the  sanction  of  their 
acknowledgment. 

The  reformist  group  which  had  seized,  in  such  an 
essentially  revolutionary  manner,  the  supreme  power 
in  the  church  of  Russia,  soon  organized  itself.  But 
even  before  its  definite  organization  and  adoption  of  a 
statement  of  its  aims,  the  loosely  coherent  group  began 
to  voice  its  demands.  As  early  as  May  5,  in  the  very 
first  number  of  the  official  organ  of  the  group,  called 
The  Living  Church,  Krasnitsky  expressed  the  elemen¬ 
tary  demands  of  his  fellow-reformists  by  insisting  upon 
a  change  of  personnel  in  the  highest  offices,  and  upon 
the  calling  of  a  new  national  Sobor  which  would  bring 
about  pacification  of  the  almost  intolerable  relations 
existing  between  the  church  and  the  state,  which 
without  exaggeration  could  be  termed  a  state  of  civil 


212  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

war.23  In  the  next  number  of  this  same  publication, 
it  was  furthermore  specified  that  the  principle  of 
separation  of  the  church  from  the  state  must  be 
acknowledged  as  the  sine  qua  non  of  the  new  ecclesiasti¬ 
cal  policy,  and  as  a  matter  settled  once  for  all.  One 
is  considerably  surprised  to  read  what  the  next  Sobor 
was  expected  to  accomplish :  it  was  confidently  affirmed 
by  these  reformists  that  the  traditional  immobility 
and  the  frigid,  static  conservatism  of  the  Orthodox 
church  must  give  way  to  a  new  psychology — to  that  of 
a  “dynamic,  vital,  moving,  creative  progress  from  one 
attainment  to  another.”24  Secondly,  the  article 
declared  that  capitalism,  from  the  Christian  point  of 
view,  must  be  acknowledged  as  “the  great  lie.”  The 
divine  worship  must  cease  to  be  the  soulless  cere¬ 
monialism  which  it  so  long  had  been;  the  episcopal 
office  must  no  longer  stand  for  ecclesiastical  des¬ 
potism,  and  must  transform  itself  wholly  into  a  source 
of  the  mystical,  spiritual  power  and  divine  grace 
vouchsafed  to  the  church  through  the  episcopal  succes¬ 
sion.  Finally,  the  very  decrease  in  the  ranks  of  the 
monks,  occasioned  by  the  confiscation  of  monastic 
property,  should  force  upon  the  church  the  necessity  of 
admitting  the  “white,”  i.e.  married,  clergy  to  the  epis¬ 
copal  office,  and  thus  acknowledging  and  reinstituting 
the  early-Christian  married  episcopate.  This  article  is 
probably  the  earliest  public  declaration  of  the  general 
principles  of  the  reformists,  and  it  admittedly  presents 
a  bold  program.  The  man  courageous  enough  to  out¬ 
line  such  an  objective  was  no  other  than  Alexander 
Vvedensky.26 

28  Cf.  The  Living  Church,  No.  1,  May  1922,  p.  3. 

24  Ibid.,  No.  2,  May  23,  1922,  p.  4. 

26  Ibid.,  No.  2,  May  23,  1922. 


213 


The  Origin  of  the  Schism 

These  ideals  were  soon  to  be  written  into  the  official 
platform  of  the  whole  party,  organized  shortly  after 
the  publication  of  this  article.  The  constituent  con¬ 
ference  of  the  organization  was  held  in  Moscow,  on 
May  29,  1922,  and  was  attended  by  146  delegates,  of 
whom,  however,  only  36,  i.e.  just  about  one-fourth, 
adopted  the  platform  of  the  Living  Church,  as  the 
organization  came  to  be  called,  and  thus  became  the 
founding  members  of  it.  Their  definition  of  the  aims 
of  the  group,  which  closely  follows  the  ideas  expressed 
by  Vvedensky  in  the  above-mentioned  article,  is  so 
intrinsically  valuable  for  a  proper  estimate  of  the  move¬ 
ment  that  an  extended  statement  of  it  must  be  risked. 

The  first  section  dealt  with  dogmatic  reforms,  which 
comprised  a  return  to  the  primitive  Christian  teaching, 
with  an  emphatic  development  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
humanity  of  Christ,  and  a  struggle  against  the  scho¬ 
lastic  interpretation  of  Christianity.  God  was  to  be 
conceived  as  a  God  of  love,  rather  than  a  wrathful 
judge.  The  universe  was  affirmed  to  have  been 
evolved  by  the  might  of  God,  but  by  means  of  natural 
processes.  Salvation  was  to  be  conceived  as  the 
reawakening  of  the  filial  sense  in  men  through  God’s 
love  of  them.  The  church  of  Christ  is  a  human-divine 
society  established  for  the  purpose  of  realizing  the 
divine  truth  upon  earth.  The  last  judgment,  heaven, 
and  hell  are  concepts  to  be  interpreted  ethically. 

Among  the  ethical  reforms  demanded  by  the  group 
were:  rejection  of  the  monastic  (ascetic)  teaching  that 
salvation  was  to  be  gained  only  by  renunciation  of  the 
world  and  by  suppression  of  the  natural  human  desires ; 
in  contradiction  to  this,  salvation  was  to  be  sought 
under  the  conditions  of  faithful  performance  of  the 
ordinary  duties  and  labors  imposed  by  life.  The  family 


214  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

is  the  foundation  of  ethical  and  moral  life;  women 
therefore  must  have  equal  rights  with  men.  The  equal¬ 
ity  of  all  workers  in  the  enjoyment  of  the  fruits  of  their 
labor  is  to  be  affirmed  as  the  primary  concern  of  the 
government.  The  moral  and  material  support  of  the 
efforts  of  the  government  to  care  for  invalids,  widows, 
and  orphans  is  a  duty  incumbent  upon  all  Christians. 
An  acknowledgment  of  the  justice  of  the  social  revolu¬ 
tion  and  the  righteousness  of  the  effort  to  unify  the 
workers  of  the  world  for  the  purpose  of  defending  the 
rights  of  the  working  and  exploited  man,  was  likewise 
to  be  counted  essential. 

In  the  third  place,  a  reform  of  the  liturgical  forms 
of  church  life  should  comprise  a  survey  of  all  liturgical 
literature  of  the  church  with  the  view  of  determining 
and  eliminating  such  parts  as  were  incorporated  into 
it  during  the  reign  of  the  ober-procurors  and  of  the 
tsarist  monarchy;  furthermore,  liberty  of  liturgical 
creativity  in  the  field  of  worship  must  be  assured  and 
encouraged.  Elimination  of  rites  which  were  clearly 
a  survival  of  the  former  pagan  concepts  was  likewise 
included.  A  struggle  with  superstitions  which  grew  up 
among  the  ignorant  masses,  or  were  deliberately 
fostered  by  monkish  exploitation  of  their  credulity, 
was  another  item  of  the  program.  Cooperation  of  the 
laity  in  the  service  of  worship  concluded  the  list  of 
liturgical  reforms. 

The  canonical  reforms  proposed  by  the  group  were 
directed  to  rescinding  such  rules  and  canons  as  had 
either  outgrown  their  usefulness  by  reason  of  the 
altered  conditions,  or  which  had  been  superimposed 
by  the  dictates  of  the  former  tsarist  authorities.  The 
final  section  of  the  program  dealt  with  the  parochial 
reform,  which  included  these  points:  the  pastor  of  each 


215 


The  Origin  of  the  Schism 

individual  congregation  was  to  be  elected  by  the  con¬ 
gregation;  the  lay  membership  was  to  have  a  part  in 
the  disposition  of  the  church  collections,  along  with 
the  clergy ;  the  lay  people  were  to  have  equal  responsi¬ 
bility  for  the  nurture  of  the  young  in  Christian  princi¬ 
ples  of  living  along  with  the  clergy.  The  program  also 
advocated  a  reinstitution  of  the  office  of  deaconess, 
and  made  an  especially  important  and  revolutionary 
demand  for  the  eligibility  of  married  presbyters  for 
the  episcopal  office,  which  must  cease  to  bear  the 
character  of  despotic  absolutism,  as  it  had  developed 
in  Russia  under  the  influence  of  the  autocratic  tsarist 
regime.  The  supreme,  as  well  as  the  eparchial,  admin¬ 
istrative  offices  must  be  constituted  in  a  representative 
manner,  having  members  from  the  episcopate,  the 
lower  clergy,  and  the  laymen;  all  these  three  groups 
should  enjoy  equal  rights.  Finally,  the  program 
demanded  the  liberation  of  the  parochial  clergy  from 
the  humiliating  dependence  upon  the  richer  peasantry, 
by  developing  the  sense  of  responsibility  for  the  clergy 
on  the  part  of  the  entire  congregation.28 

As  for  the  methods  and  means  by  which  the  program 
was  to  be  carried  out,  the  conference  urged  that  every 
member  should  attempt  to  spread  these  ideals  in 
sermons,  lectures,  discussions,  disputations,  as  well  as 
by  literary  activity  in  papers,  periodicals,  and  books. 
They  also  proposed  the  holding  of  local  and  national 
conferences  and  congresses,  by  means  of  which  they 
wished  to  influence  public  opinion  as  well  as  the 
government. 

As  already  stated  in  the  program,  the  group  decided 
to  free  the  church  from  the  hierarchial  control  of 

2  8  The  full  program  published  in  the  official  organ,  The  Living 
Church,  No.  10,  Oct.  1,  1922,  pp.  17-18. 


216  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

the  monastic  episcopate,  in  which  it  saw  the  chief  prop 
of  the  ancient  regime  in  the  ecclesiastical  as  well 
as  the  political  spheres.  The  new  episcopate  was  to 
be  chosen  equally  from  the  white,  married  clergy  and 
the  monastic ;  but  the  reformed  episcopate  would  play 
the  chief  role  no  longer :  the  supreme  authority  in  the 
reconstituted  church  should  be  synodical,  or  collegiate, 
in  form,  and  all  three  grades,  the  episcopate,  clergy,  and 
laymen,  should  share  equally  in  the  exercise  of  power. 
But  since  the  white  clergy  would  of  necessity  predom¬ 
inate  in  any  such  combination,  that  group  should  wield 
the  preponderating  influence. 

In  the  relations  of  the  church  with  the  state,  the 
Living  Church  group  proposed  to  reverse  the  policy 
of  Tikhon,  and  to  reinstate  peaceful,  and  even  ami¬ 
cable,  relations  with  the  authorities  by  a  hearty 
acknowledgment  of  the  October  Revolution,  and  “the 
truth”  of  the  socialistic  ideal  as  essentially  Christian. 
Therefore,  willingly  accepting  the  fundamental 
principle  of  separation  of  the  church  from  the  state, 
and  secularization  of  the  state,  with  the  consequent 
non-interference  of  the  church  in  politics,  the  Living 
Church  group  declared  that  the  sphere  of  action  of  the 
church  was  solely  that  of  purely  spiritual  functions,  as 
well  as  the  elimination  of  exploitation,  inequality, 
social  injustice,  and  other  social  evils.  In  as  far  as 
these  common  objectives  were  shared  by  both  the 
church  and  the  Soviet  state,  the  Living  Church  group 
acknowledged  its  sympathy  with  the  attempt  of  the 
government  to  remove  such  evils  and  to  bring  about  a 
betterment  of  the  living  conditions  of  the  poor;  but 
beyond  this,  even  the  Living  Church  recognized  cer¬ 
tain  limits  in  approving  the  policy  of  the  government. 
Nevertheless,  even  this  measure  of  solidarity  and 


217 


The  Origin  of  the  Schism 

acknowledgment  earned  the  Living  Church  the  oppro¬ 
brious  epithet  of  the  “Soviet”  or  the  “Red”  church.27 

The  various  items  of  the  growing  list  of  reforms  were 
not  merely  enunciated  as  a  theoretical  ideal,  but  were 
acted  upon.  Thus,  for  instance,  the  pet  project  of 
the  group  to  affirm  the  equal  right  of  the  white,  married 
clergy  with  the  monastic  to  eligibility  for  the  episcopal 
post  was  carried  into  practice  when  the  Supreme 
Ecclesiastical  Administration,  without  waiting  for  the 
Sobor  to  pass  upon  this  really  important  question,  con¬ 
ferred  the  episcopal  ordination  upon  a  married  priest, 
Al’binsky,  without  requiring  him  to  assume  the  mon¬ 
astic  vows.28 

In  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  Living  Church  group 
had  a  clearly  defined  platform,  it  did  not  formally 
organize  itself  as  a  church  party  till  the  end  of  June, 
when  it  held  its  third  public  meeting.  The  gather¬ 
ing  threatened  to  end  in  a  riot,  for  when  Bishop 
Antonin  announced  to  the  masses  the  reformist  pro¬ 
gram,  the  lay  audience,  especially  the  women,  broke 
out  into  open  threats  and  protests.  After  the  public 
meeting,  the  clerical  delegates  adopted  a  constitution 
embodying  all  the  essential  points  of  the  May  pro¬ 
gram.20  Moreover,  the  party  organized  itself  formally 
by  electing  a  central  administrative  and  executive 
committee,  with  a  presidium,  of  which  Archpriest 
Vladimir  D.  Krasnitsky  was  the  head. 

But  the  most  important  event  since  the  abdication 
of  Patriarch  Tikhon  was  the  holding  of  the  All-Russian 
Conference  of  the  Living  Church  group,  which  met  in 
the  beautiful  cathedral  of  Christ  the  Savior  in  Moscow, 

27  Titlinov,  The  New  Church ,  Moscow,  1923,  pp.  10-12. 

28  Izvestiya,  No.  132,  June  16,  1922. 

28  Ibid.,  No.  141,  June  28,  1922. 


218  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

from  August  6  to  16.  The  number  of  eparchies  repre¬ 
sented  amounted  to  twenty-four,  and  the  meeting  com¬ 
prised  one  hundred  and  ninety  delegates,  of  whom 
one  hundred  and  fifty  had  the  right  to  vote.  Krasnit- 
sky  was  elected  chairman.  But  instead  of  unifying 
the  reformist  forces,  as  was  confidently  expected  of  the 
conference,  so  many  divergent  views  came  into  evi¬ 
dence  that  finally  the  discord  resulted  in  splitting  the 
movement  into  several  smaller  units.  One  tendency 
saw  the  goal  of  the  reformist  endeavors  in  a  moderate 
program  of  extricating  the  church  from  the  difficult 
position  into  which  the  policies  of  Patriarch  Tikhon 
had  plunged  it,  and  sought  to  accomplish  this  without 
provoking  a  crisis  or  disruption  within  the  church; 
another  tendency,  more  revolutionary  and  radical,  pro¬ 
nounced  a  struggle  of  the  white  clergy  for  the  episcopal 
control,  by  overthrowing  the  unique  privileges  of  the 
monastic  order  in  this  regard,  to  be  the  chief  task  of 
the  reformist  movement.  Most  of  the  discussion  of  the 
conference  centered  about  this  latter  point,  and 
resulted  in  the  adoption  of  a  resolution  according  to 
which  the  city  monasteries  and  convents  were  to  be 
closed  and  turned  into  parochial  churches,  on  the  score 
that  monks  by  their  very  profession  have  no  place 
in  the  turmoil  of  life;  as  for  the  country  monasteries, 
they  were  to  be  transformed  into  brotherhood  centers 
engaged  in  some  useful  humanitarian  work,  such  as 
clinics,  homes  for  invalids  or  retired  clergymen,  and 
other  such  useful  social  service.80 

Discussing  the  functions  of  the  so-called  “learned 
monks,”  the  conference  concluded  that  most  of  the 
seminarists  who  take  the  vows  were  motivated  by 

80  Report  of  the  conference,  in  The  Living  Church,  No.  8-9,  Sept. 
1-15,  1922,  pp.  7-8. 


219 


The  Origin  of  the  Schism 

vulgar  career-making,  and  pronounced  the  entire  insti¬ 
tution  “an  evil.”  In  this  same  connection,  the  con¬ 
ference  adopted  these  tremendously  weighty 
conclusions: 

1.  That  the  Living  Church  group  should  demand  at 
the  next  Sobor  that  Patriarch  Tikhon  be  deprived  of 
his  clerical  orders,  because  he  bears  the  chief  guilt 
for  the  present  disorganization  of  the  church. 

2.  That  the  Supreme  Ecclesiastical  Administration 
be  petitioned  to  order  an  immediate  cessation  of  the 
mention  of  his  name  in  the  liturgical  services  in  all  par¬ 
ishes  of  the  Russian  Orthodox  church,  as  of  one  who  no 
longer  holds  office.31 

Moreover,  all  ecclesiastical  superiors  found  guilty  of 
exerting  their  hierarchial  authority  in  a  manner  detri¬ 
mental  to  the  Living  Church  policies,  as  well  as  those 
opposing  the  progressivist  movement  by  passive  non- 
cooperation,  should  be  deposed  and  banished  from 
their  former  eparchies;  in  case  that  opposition  to  the 
progressivist  priest  should  come  from  his  local  church 
council,  the  eparchial  administration  should  be 
instructed  by  the  Supreme  Ecclesiastical  Administra¬ 
tion  to  depose  such  a  council,  and  the  local  parish 
thereupon  should  “send  a  list  of  the  new  candidates  for 
the  parochial  council  composed  of  persons  who  have 
preserved  canonical  obedience  (rule  56)  to  their  priest. 
Persons  manifesting  opposition  shall  be  handed  over 
to  the  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  and  sentenced  to 
ecclesiastical  punishments  to  the  extent  of  excommuni¬ 
cation  from  the  church.”  32  What  apt  pupils  of  the 
Bolshevist  methods  these  priestly  revolutionaries 
were! 

81  The  Living  Church,  No.  8-9,  1922,  p.  8. 

"Ibid.,  p.  8. 


220  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

Since  the  whole  Living  Church  movement  repre¬ 
sented  a  revolt  of  the  white  parochial  clergy  against 
the  age-long  preemption  of  the  hierarchical  offices 
by  the  monks,  with  the  consequent  autocratic  control 
of  the  white  clergy  by  the  black — or  the  regular  clergy, 
as  we  would  say  in  the  West — it  is  no  wonder  that  this 
problem  of  snatching  the  control  from  their  hands 
greatly  exercised  the  ingenuity  of  the  “whites.”  They 
felt,  in  the  first  place,  that  long-established  usage  and 
tradition  was  against  them.  Many  Protestants  fail  to 
understand  and  appreciate  the  state  of  mind,  border¬ 
ing  upon  holy  horror,  with  which  most  Russians  would 
contemplate  the  possibility  of  married  bishops.  At  no 
point  is  the  conservative  traditionalism  of  the  average 
Russian  more  apparent  than  at  this.  All  these  diffi¬ 
culties  were  duly  appreciated  by  the  conference,  which, 
therefore,  was  particularly  concerned  to  prove  its  case : 
in  long;  and  learned  disquisitions,  the  speakers  pre¬ 
sented  voluble  and  tedious  arguments,  the  burden  of 
which  was  that  the  ancient  apostolic  church  possessed 
a  married  episcopate,  and  the  same  practice  was  long 
preserved  in  the  Eastern  church.  The  conference 
finally  voted  that : 

1.  On  the  basis  of  the  fifth  and  fifty-first  rules,  the 
holy  Apostles  permit  married  presbyters  to  assume 
the  episcopal  office. 

2.  On  the  basis  of  the  practice  of  the  ancient  church, 
of  the  third  rule  of  the  Sixth  Ecumenical  Council,  and 
of  the  tenth  rule  of  the  Council  of  Ancyra,  widowed 
priests  are  permitted  to  contract  a  second  marriage  and 
to  retain  their  office. 

3.  On  the  basis  of  the  same  rules,  monastic  clergy 
are  permitted,  upon  abjuring  their  vows,  to  marry,  still 
retaining  their  office.83 

8  8  Ibid.,  No.  8-9,  Sept.  1-15,  1922. 


221 


The  Origin  of  the  Schism 

When  the  conference  was  presented  with  the  report 
of  the  episcopal  commission,  it  was  found  that,  out  of 
the  ninety-seven  bishops  who  were  serving  at  the  time 
of  the  conference,  thirty-seven  were  counted  partisans 
of  the  Living  Church,  thirty-six  were  opposed  to  it,  and 
twenty-four  adopted  the  wary  policy  of  watchful  wait¬ 
ing.  The  conference  voted  that  bishops  antagonistic 
to  the  group  must  be  retired,  and  the  prudent  middle 
class  must  be  confronted  with  a  definite  choice  of 
alternatives:  either  acknowledge  the  program  of  the 
Living  Church,  or  pronounce  themselves  partisans  of 
the  patriarch.  Thereupon  they  would  be  dealt  with 
accordingly.  The  commission  likewise  nominated,  out 
of  the  married  archpriests,  six  candidates  for  vacancies 
in  episcopal  sees.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  five  of 
the  bishops  present  signified  their  willingness  to  ordain 
these  married  clerics.84 

Finally,  the  conference  proceeded  with  elections  to 
the  Supreme  Ecclesiastical  Administration,  for  which 
twenty  members  were  chosen:  five  bishops,  twelve 
priests,  one  deacon,  and  two  laymen.  The  Central 
Executive  Committee  of  the  Living  Church  was  com¬ 
posed  of  twenty-five  members.  Thereupon,  on 
August  16,  this  important  gathering  was  adjourned. 

Before  its  adjournment,  the  conference  adopted  an 
address  to  the  people,  which  recounted  the  charges 
against  the  patriarch  and  described  the  policies  of  the 
new  administration.  As  such,  it  is  worth  quoting: 

You  all  well  know  in  what  a  difficult  position  our 
Orthodox  Russian  church  finds  itself.  From  the  time 
of  establishment  of  the  autocracy  in  Russia,  the  church 
was  its  chief  mainstay,  and  gradually  losing  its  purely 
spiritual  character,  in  the  end  served  not  so  much 

34  Ibid.,  No.  8-9,  Sept.  1-15,  1922,  p.  10. 


222  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

religious  as  political  objectives,  transforming  itself, 
especially  in  its  supreme  monastic  administration,  into 
a  servitor  and  slave  of  the  government.  The  white 
clergy,  both  city  and  country,  lower  clergy  and  the 
lay  membership,  suffered  threefold  oppression:  of  the 
tsarist  government,  of  the  supreme  ecclesiastical  gov¬ 
ernment,  which  was  in  collusion  with  the  capitalists, 
and  entirely  dominated  the  Orthodox  churches  and 
managed  them,  as  well  as  the  pastors  and  the  lower 
clergy,  according  to  their  own  base  pleasure ;  the 
churches,  were  magnificently  decked  out,  but  became, 
so  to  speak,  soulless,  and  while  satisfying  the  vanity 
of  the  rich,  afforded  less  and  less  spiritual  comfort 
and  peace  to  the  sorrowful  and  heavy-laden. 

The  October  Revolution  freed  the  church  from 
the  heavy  yoke  of  the  government  of  property-owners, 
separating  it  from  the  state,  and  by  that  action,  grant¬ 
ing  it  the  freedom  of  spiritual  development  and  per¬ 
fection  ;  but  our  hierarchs,  those  “princes  of  the 
church,”  closely  bound  by  their  comfortable  and  easy¬ 
going  lives  to  the  tsarist  government,  did  not,  in  reality, 
desire  such  a  liberation,  since  it  was  not  for  their 
advancement,  but  only  in  the  interest  of  the  white, 
parochial  clergy,  lower  orders,  and  the  lay  member¬ 
ship.  Hence  it  is  fully  intelligible  why  they  unani¬ 
mously  opposed  the  separation  of  the  church  from  the 
state,  and  represented  this  necessary  and  salutary 
action  of  the  civil  government  to  the  white  clergy, 
lower  orders,  and  all  the  faithful  of  Russia  as  persecu¬ 
tions  of  the  church  and  of  the  faith  in  Christ. 
Regardless  of  the  fact  that  many  of  them  long  before 
the  Russian  socialistic  revolution  foresaw  its  inevit¬ 
ableness  and  its  full  justice,  as  well  as  the  inevitable 
union  of  the  workers  of  the  world  in  defense  of  the 
worker’s  and  of  the  exploited  man’s  rights  against 
capitalism,  that  worst  kind  of  atheism,  they,  those 
hierarchs  of  ours,  when  it  in  the  meanwhile(  was 


223 


The  Origin  of  the  Schism 

realized  in  Russia,  instead  of  recognizing  the  accom¬ 
plished  fact  as  a  fully  natural  happening,  caused  by 
an  age-long  arbitrariness  of  the  absolute  rule  of  the 
propertied  classes,  not  only  refused  to  do  so,  but,  on 
the  contrary,  suppressed  the  truth  and  joined  the  ene¬ 
mies  of  the  Russian  nation  in  obstructing  in  all  kinds 
of  ways  the  establishment  of  the  new  order  in  our 
native  land.  Five  years  of  civil  war,  heavy  sacrifices 
borne  by  our  families,  enormous  economic  upheaval, 
millions  of  the  sons  of  Russia  killed  and  wounded 
in  that  war — all  these  are  the  fruits  of  the  criminal 
treason  against  the  Russian  working  people  which  our 
Orthodox  hierarchs  committed  by  siding  with  the 
national  enemies.  In  the  armies  of  Kolchak,  Denikin, 
Wrangel,  Rodzyanko,  Yudenin,  and  the  other  robbers 
who  were  cruelly  plundering  the  Russian  land  and 
who  one  after  another  escaped  abroad  with  the 
plundered  property  of  the  Russian  people,  they,  our 
hierarchs,  occupied  honorary  places,  violently  took  part 
injjie  plundering,  all  the  while  excusing  and  blessing 
the  atrocious  lawlessness.  To  crown  it  all,  last  winter 
they  gathered  themselves  at  Karlovtsi,  together  with 
the  runaway  owners  and  prominent  officials  of  the 
former  tsarist  regime,  and  engaged  in  instigating 
popular  uprising  and  a  new  civil  war  under  the  guise 
of  guarding  church  treasures  which  were  consigned 
to  aid  those  who  were  dying  of  starvation.  Our 
supreme  pastors,  with  Patriarch  Tikhon  at  their  head, 
in  order  to  preserve  in  our  Orthodox  churches  gold, 
silver,  and  precious  objects,  falsely  expounded  the 
canons,  caused  disturbance  among  the  faithful,  and 
instigated  commotion,  local  revolts,  and  bloodshed. 

These  sad  manifestations  caused  the  cup  of  patience 
of  the  true  sons  of  the  Russian  Orthodox  Church  to 
overflow,  and  forced  them  to  adopt  revolutionary  meas¬ 
ures  for  renewing  the  church  on  the  basis  of  gospel 
principles  and  apostolic  traditions.  This  great 


224  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

task  is  to  be  carried  out  by  the  impending  All-Russian 
Local  Sobor,  the  difficult  task  of  preparing  for  which 
the  Supreme  Ecclesiastical  Administration  has  taken 
upon  itself. 

A  large  number  of  our  best  hierarchs,  such  as  Metro¬ 
politan  Sergei  of  Vladimir,  Archbishop  Evdokim  of 
Nizhni  Novgorod,  Serafim  of  Kostroma,  Tikhon  of 
Voronezh,  and  many  other  hierarchs  of  our  church, 
hastened  to  confirm  by  their  acknowledgment  the 
complete  canonicity  and  legality  of  the  Supreme 
Ecclesiastical  Administration,  and  now  in  every  way 
cooperate  in  its  difficult  task  with  the  party  of  the 
white  Orthodox  clergy,  the  Living  Church!35 

The  conference  was  intrinsically  of  great  importance 
for  the  furthering  of  the  policies  of  the  group  opposed 
to  Tikhon’s  reign ;  but  as  a  means  of  unification  of  the 
divergent  methods  of  reform,  it  proved  to  be  a  signal 
failure.  In  fact,  the  ruthless  imposition  of  the  program 
of  Krasnitsky’s  faction  upon  the  entire  conference, 
and  the  unwillingness  to  modify  it  essentially  by  the 
suggestions  and  programs  of  the  other  tendencies, 
resulted  in  a  split  of  the  reformist  forces.  The  more 
moderate  party  within  the  conference  found  itself 
unable  to  stem  the  high-handed  policy  of  the  ecclesias¬ 
tical  revolutionaries,  for  it  did  not  approve  of  the 
undemocratic  and  dictatorial  method  of  procedure 
adopted  by  the  majority.  The  minority  decided, 
therefore,  after  the  conclusion  of  the  conference,  to 
organize  itself  separately.  At  the  head  of  the  seceding 
faction  was  the  same  Bishop  Antonin  who  had  such  a 
long  revolutionary  record  and  who  had  headed  the 
Supreme  Ecclesiastical  Administration.  On  August 

s6  Titlinov:  The  New  Church ,  pp.  17-20. 


225 


The  Origin  of  the  Schism 

20,  this  party  organized  itself  into  a  reformist  group 
which  assumed  the  name  of  the  Churchly  Regenera¬ 
tion ,  and  adopted  a  platform  which  in  brief  outline 
included  these  items: 

The  group  defined  its  aim  as  that  of  a  return  to 
the  early  apostolic  democratic  conception  of  life,  and 
of  equalization  of  it  in  accordance  with  the  principles 
of  brotherhood  and  liberty,  by  eliminating  and  purging 
away  every  vestige  of  clericalism  and  sacerdotalism 
introduced  during  the  ages  of  ignorance  and  darkness 
and  of  the  autocratic  hierarchical  administrative 
tyranny  which  was  but  a  reflex  of  the  tsarist  despotism. 

In  pursuance  of  these  fundamentally  democratic 
objectives,  the  group  proposed  to  work  for  the  enlight¬ 
enment  of  the  dense  masses  of  the  Russian  church- 
membership  by  means  of  religious  education  and  dif¬ 
fusion  of  spiritual  culture,  by  spiritualization  of  wor¬ 
ship,  simplification  of  the  ritual,  elimination  of  much 
of  the  outward  ceremonial  show  which  was  deemed 
detrimental  to  the  inward  meaning  of  Christianity, 
and  by  removal  of  the  many  pagan  elements  of  magic 
from  the  cult,  as  well  as  by  opposing  the  unscrupulous 
religious  exploitation  of  the  ignorant  masses  carried 
on  by  fostering  their  superstitious  fears  or  their  lean¬ 
ings  upon  the  miraculous. 

The  group  professed  its  loyalty  to  and  solidarity 
with  the  true  Christian  ideals  of  all  times  (catholicity), 
but  where  these  ideals  were  corrupted  by  the  cor¬ 
rosive  influence  of  the  tsarist  despotism  or  ignorance 
of  the  times,  they  must  be  restored  to  their  pristine 
purity.  In  regard  to  the  eligibility  of  the  white  clergy 
to  episcopacy,  the  group  shared  the  attitude  of  the 
Living  Church  in  so  far  as  it  conceded  equal  rights 


226  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

of  both  the  white  and  the  black  clergy;  but  it  sharply 
differed  from  the  Living  Church  in  insisting  that  the 
bishop  must  be  unmarried. 

The  group  likewise  acknowledged  the  principle  of 
a  free  election  of  the  priests  by  their  congregations, 
and  professed  its  rejection  of  the  opposite  principle 
of  appointments  by  ecclesiastical  hierarchy.  As  for 
monasticism,  it  was  acknowledged  as  a  system  of 
spiritual  heroism,  a  voluntary  retirement  from  the  tur¬ 
moil  of  life  for  the  purpose  of  concentrating  upon 
the  cultivation  of  the  inner  life  of  the  heart  and  of 
perfection  of  the  spiritual  life;  but  its  use  for  purposes 
of  attainment  of  hierarchial  power  and  a  life  of  ease 
was  severely  denounced.  The  group  likewise  acknowl¬ 
edged  the  right  of  the  monk  to  abandon  the  monastery 
and  the  concomitant  vow,  but  held,  in  distinction  from 
the  Living  Church,  that  every  regular  cleric  who 
abandons  his  monastery  ipso  facto  ceases  to  be  a  priest 
as  well  as  a  monk. 

The  chief  difference  between  the  Living  Church  and 
the  Churchly  Regeneration  lay  in  the  fact  that  the 
former  was  predominantly  a  professional,  clerical 
organization,  struggling  almost  exclusively  for  a  pro¬ 
gram  of  betterment  of  the  position  of  the  white  clergy, 
especially  at  the/  corresponding  curtailment  of  the 
unjust  privileges  of  the  monastic  hierarchy.  But  being 
a  clerical  organization,  and  especially  because  of  the 
autocratic  spirit  which  characterized  the  group,  it  did 
not  enjoy  the  support  of  the  masses  of  the  people.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  Churchly  Regeneration  group  was 
consciously  bidding  for  the  peasant  support  by  its  pro¬ 
gram  of  democratization,  but  at  the  same  time  it  was 
less  radical  in  the  treatment  of  the  age-long  traditional 
concepts  of  religious  life  and  churchly  government. 


227 


The  Origin  of  the  Schism 

It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  at  first  the  group 
had  a  remarkable  success;  many  Moscow  priests  and 
thousands  of  laymen  joined  its  ranks,  and  the  Petro- 
grad  contingent  of  the  Living  Church  joined  the  new 
movement  en  masse.  Other  cities  likewise  contributed 
their  share;  thus,  at  first,  the  prospects  of  the  new 
organization  were  bright.36 

The  other  chief  defection  from  the  ranks  of  the 
Living  Church  was  led  by  another  great  leader  of 
the  original  secession  movement  in  opposition  to 
Tikhon,  Archpriest  Alexander  Vvedensky.  This  fiery 
orator,  one  of  the  most  outstanding  men  in  the  entire 
movement,  became  dissatisfied  with  many  things  that 
were  included  in  the  program  of  the  Living  Church, 
but  much  more  with  the  omission  of  certain  other 
reforms.  These  were  largely  of  dogmatic  character. 
The  name  which  this  group  assumed  was  that  of 
the  Ancient  Apostolic  Church. 

It  will  be  remembered  that,  originally,  the  Supreme 
Ecclesiastical  Administration,  almost  immediately 
upon  assuming  office,  made  public  declarations  that 
the  second  local  Sobor  would  be  called  in  the  near 
future,  naming  August  as  the  probable  time.  However, 
as  time  went  on,  the  leaders  began  to  realize  that  it 
would  be  very  risky  and  hence  inadvisable  to  convene 
the  Sobor  so  soon,  for  it  was  very  probable,  and  in 
fact  certain,  that  the  majority  of  the  hierarchy  then 
holding  eparchial  appointments  were  not  friendly  to 
the  Living  Church,  and  hence  this  group  was  in 
imminent  danger  of  losing  its  power.  The  only  pos¬ 
sible  way  to  insure  victory  to  the  program  which  they 
professed,  and  incidentally  to  retain  the  power  in  their 
own  hands,  was  by  displacing  all  who  were  known 
80  Titlinov,  The  New  Church,  pp.  21ff. 


228  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

openly  to  oppose  the  Supreme  Ecclesiastical  Admin¬ 
istration,  and  to  force  the  cautious,  non-committal 
center  to  the  choice  of  an  open  stand;  thereupon  to 
fill  the  vacancies  thus  occasioned  with  stanch  sup¬ 
porters  of  the  new  ecclesiastical  regime.  As  was 
observed,  that  was  exactly  the  program  adopted  at 
the  August  conference  of  the  Living  Church,  and  the 
ruthless  measures  devised  for  the  execution  of  the 
policy  astounded  and  repelled  even  some  of  the  party 
members  themselves. 

The  best  and  most  candid  avowal  of  this  policy  of 
“purgation  of  the  church”  was  that  expressed  by 
Vladimir  N.  LVov,  the  former  revolutionary  ober- 
procuror  of  the  Holy  Synod  under  the  Provisional 
Government,  who  had  been  elected,  shortly  before  the 
August  conference,  to  membership  in  the  Supreme 
Ecclesiastical  Administration.  In  a  long  interview 
reported  in  the  Izvestiya ,37  LVov  pointed  out  the  dis¬ 
astrous  outcome  of  the  Sobor  of  1917,  from  which 
such  great  and  far-reaching  reforms  had  been  expected, 
and  traced  the  cause  of  the  disappointment  to  the 
conservative  and  in  part  even  reactionary  character 
of  the  majority  of  the  then  ruling  hierarchy.  Hence, 
before  any  reforms  could  be  seriously  considered  at 
present,  the  church  must  be  first  of  all  purged  of  all 
its  reactionary  elements,  for  thus  alone  would  it  be 
possible  to  introduce  a  reformatory  spirit  into  it.  It 
would  be  useless,  therefore,  to  contemplate  the  conven¬ 
ing  of  the  second  Sobor  until  this  preliminary  work 
is  done.  First,  it  is  necessary  to  purge  the  ranks 
of  the  ecclesiastical  office-holders;  the  Sobor  which 
would  then  be  convened  would  be  sure  to  take  the 
desired  reforms  in  hand. 

37  No.  171,  Aug.  2,  1922. 


229 


The  Origin  of  the  Schism 

The  government,  LVov  continued,  is  duty-bound  to 
interest  itself  in  church  affairs,  in  spite  of  the  decree 
separating  the  church  from  the  state,  because  the 
church  represents  the  last  front  against  the  new  gov¬ 
ernmental  regime.  As  the  government  was  able,  step 
by  step,  to  crumble  all  other  fronts,  the  reaction-  ^ 
ary  political  leaders  had  taken  refuge  in  the  church, 
which  now  is  the  last  front  to  be  overcome.  For  that 
reason  it  is  incumbent  upon  the  government  to  purge 
the  church,  especially  the  parochial  councils,  of  these 
reactionary  elements;  “the  principle  of  the  separation 
of  the  church  from  the  state,  if  at  present  put  into 
practice  in  its  entirety,  would  mean  a  surrender  to 
the  church  front.  That  principle  can  be  realized  only 
in  case  the  church  does  not  interfere  in  the  realm  of 
politics,  but  in  revolutionary  times  the  realization  of 
such  a  principle  to  the  fullest  degree  is  not  possible.” 

The  purgation  of  the  church  of  its  reactionary 
elements  can  be  accomplished  only  in  one  way :  by  the 
expulsion  of  such  individuals  from  their  official  posts. 
First  of  all,  it  would  involve  retirement  of  hierarchs 
opposed  to  the  reform,  and  the  vacancies  thus  occa¬ 
sioned  would  be  filled  from  the  ranks  of  the  adherents 
of  the  new  tendency;  secondly,  the  parochial  councils 
must  likewise  be  constituted  from  men  who  represent 
the  believing  Russian  nation,  and  not  merely  from 
the  Black  Hundred  elements. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  fear,  LVov  is  further  quoted 
to  have  said,  that  this  change  of  personnel  would  lead 
to  a  new  schism;  the  reforms  involve  neither  the 
dogmas  of  the  church  nor  its  rites.  The  only  measure 
necessitating  a  change  of  the  former  accustomed  order 
is  the  eligibility  of  the  white  clergy  to  the  episcopal 
posts;  but  this  is  absolutely  necessary. 


230  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

After  the  reactionary  elements  are  removed  from 
the  hierarchal  cathedras  and  the  parochial  councils  are 
purged,  then  is  the  time  to  call  the  Sobor.  Otherwise, 
the  new  Sobor  is  certain  to  fail  of  accomplishing  what 
is  expected  of  it,  just  as  the  former  Sobor  had  done. 

And  now  follows  a  very  interesting  paragraph,  which 
it  is,  therefore,  better  to  quote  verbatim: 

You  are  interested  to  know  in  what  particular  the 
government  is  to  cooperate  in  ecclesiastical  matters. 
That  cooperation  must  show  itself  in  the  support  of 
the  reformist  movement.  The  reactionary  elements 
must  feel  that  the  governmental  authorities  will  not 
be  indifferent  to  abandoning  to  them  their  positions. 
It  would  be  strange  if  the  authorities  remained  indif¬ 
ferent  when  reactionary  elements  wish  to  make  the 
church  a  weapon  against  the  government.  Not  a 
single  European  government  would  permit  an  ecclesias¬ 
tical  organization  to  be  converted  into  agitation-units 
against  itself. 

We  are  sincerely  grateful  to  Mr.  LVov  for  such 
plain  speaking.  His  statements  make  it  perfectly  clear, 
if  it  were  not  already  clearly  manifest  from  the 
pronouncements  of  the  August  conference,  that  the 
Living  Church  meant  to  undertake  a  forcible  “purga¬ 
tion”  of  the  church,  and  that  it  meant  to  remove  all 
who  did  not  agree  with  its  party  slogans ;  in  this  under¬ 
taking,  such  official  representatives  of  the  Supreme 
Administration  as  LVov  did  not  scruple  to  admit  pub¬ 
licly  that  the  aid  of  the  government  would  be  desired. 
The  outcome  of  such  measures  could  be  nothing  else 
than  a  schism,  and  it  is  amazing  that  LVov  did  not  see 
it.  The  forcible  ejection  of  so  large  and  power¬ 
ful  majority  opposing  the  new  movement  would  neces¬ 
sarily  put  these  elements  on  the  defensive,  and  their 


231 


The  Origin  of  the  Schism 

ranks  would  be  swollen  by  those  who  were  constrained 
to  choose  between  the  two  camps  by  the  importunate 
insistence  of  the  revolutionary  leaders. 

As  an  illuminating  commentary  upon  this  kind  of 
despoiling  program,  one  reads  in  the  official  organ  of 
the  Living  Church  of  one  case  after  another  of  “retire¬ 
ment”  of  this  or  that  bishop  or  other  high  ecclesiastical 
functionary.  The  least  that  any  one  of  the  undesirable 
bishops  experienced  was  to  be  transferred  to  some 
other  eparchy,  where  his  chances  for  causing  mischief 
would  be  correspondingly  lessened.  It  was  possibly 
with  such  a  motive  that  even  Bishop  Leonid,  the  only 
person  to  be  found  among  the  personnel  of  the  Supreme 
Ecclesiastical  Administration  whom  Patriarch  Tikhon 
had  appointed  and  even  him  only  temporarily,  was 
transferred  to  far-away  Penza,  in  order  to  make 
room  for  the  head  of  the  Supreme  Administration, 
Bishop  Antonin,  who  was  promoted  to  the  metro¬ 
politanate  of  Moscow.38  As  for  all  the  cases  of  “retire¬ 
ment”  of  various  bishops  and  other  ecclesiastical  digni¬ 
taries,  they  are  too  numerous  to  mention;  but  almost 
every  issue  of  the  official  organ  carried  such  ominous 
lists. 

88  Izvestiya,  No.  152,  July  11,  1922. 


t 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE  SECOND  ALL-RUSSIAN  LOCAL  SOBOR 

The  second  local  Sobor  of  the  Russian  Orthodox 
church,  which  was  preceded  by  such  assiduous  “purga¬ 
tion”  of  the  episcopal  cathedras  and  the  parochial 
councils,  was  finally  called,  “by  the  canonically  legal 
ecclesiastical  authority,”  for  February  1,  1923;  but 
then  it  was  again  postponed  till  April  29.  This  most 
important  church  gathering  since  the  adjournment  of 
the  first  Sobor  in  1918  was  attended  by  four  hundred 
and  thirty  delegates,  which  was  a  greater  number 
than  the  first  Sobor  mustered;  they  were  distributed, 
according  to  group  allegiance,  as  follows:  the  Living 
Church  had  the  largest  contingent,  in  fact  an  absolute 
majority  in  the  Sobor,  by  claiming  two  hundred  and 
fifty  delegates;  next  came  the  group  of  Alexander 
Vvedensky,  the  Ancient  Apostolic  Church ,  with  one 
hundred  and  ten  delegates;  then  followed  the  group 
of  Metropolitan  Antonin,  the  Churchly  Regeneration, 
with  twenty-five  delegates  to  the  Sobor.  Thus  all  in 
all,  the  three  groups  of  the  reformist  movement  could 
muster  three  hundred  and  eighty-five  delegates  out  of 
the  total  of  four  hundred  and  thirty.1  The  remaining 
forty-five  delegates  comprised  adherents  of  the  patri¬ 
archal  contingent,  but  their  minority  action  could 
impede  no  action  which  the  reformist  groups  wished 
to  pass.  The  Eastern  patriarchs  were  also  represented. 

1  Izvestiya,  No.  117,  May  30,  1923. 

232 


The  Second  All-Russian  Local  Sob  or  233 

An  earlier  report  regarding  the  personnel  of  the  Sobor 
specified  that  there  were  ten  delegates  from  the  Free 
Labor  Church,2  but  these  were  denied  the  right  to 
vote,  and  attended  only  as  guests. 

A  word  of  explanation  is  in  order  regarding  the 
astounding  fact  that  the  reformist  groups  were  so 
securely  in  power  when  the  second  Sobor  was  con¬ 
vened.  It  will  be  remembered,  however,  that  the 
“purgations”  of  the  church  had  now  been  going  on 
for  more  than  six  months,  and  that  would  partly 
account  for  the  really  remarkable  phenomenon; 
furthermore,  many  leaders  of  the  patriarchal  party, 
as  that  portion  which  opposed  the  activity  of  the 
Supreme  Ecclesiastical  Administration  may  be  called 
from  now  on,  insisted  that  the  calling  of  the  Sobor 
itself  was  illegal,  uncanonical,  because  the  Sobor  of 
1917-18  provided  that  the  next  Sobor  should  be  called 
and  presided  over  by  the  patriarch,  and  since  that  was 
not  the  case  in  this  instance,  they  refused  to  take  part 
in  it,  and  counseled  others  to  abstain  from  voting  for 
it.  Finally,  a  very  considerable  number  of  the  hier¬ 
archs  of  the  patriarchal  party  were  in  prison,  or  in  exile, 
or  had  left  the  country,  while  the  great  majority  of  the 
rest  were  disqualified  by  the  conditions  governing  the 
eligibility  of  the  candidates.  These  three  were  the 
chief  causes  accounting  for  the  smallness  of  the  dele¬ 
gation  from  the  patriarchal  party.  It  would,  how¬ 
ever,  appear  from  an  examination  of  the  questionable 
sent  to  the  delegates  chosen  to  the  Sobor  that  there 
was  no  unfairness  in  the  treatment  of  the  delegates,  or 
forcible  expulsion  of  any  delegates,  no  matter  what 
their  ecclesiastical  or  political  allegiance  was. 

The  official  instructions  of  February  1,  1923,  issued 

3  Cf.  Izvestiya,  No.  93,  May  5,  1923. 


234  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

by  the  Supreme  Ecclesiastical  Administration  and  pre¬ 
scribing  the  rules  of  order  in  the  selection  of  candidates 
for  the  Sobor,  give  a  fair  idea  of  the  mode  of  procedure 
adopted  for  this  purpose.  In  the  first  place,  the  instruc¬ 
tions  defined  the  aim  for  which  the  national  Sobor 
was  convened  as  that  of  “transforming  the  Russian 
Orthodox  Church  into  conformity  with  the  new  con¬ 
ditions.’ J  All  members  of  the  Sobor,  whether  clergy 
or  laymen,  and  whether  elected  or  holding  a  seat  by 
reason  of  their  office,  possessed  equal  rights;  the  only 
individuals  not  eligible  for  election  as  delegates  were 
those  who  during  the  period  in  which  the  reformist 
movement  was  in  power  were  sentenced  either  by  the 
ecclesiastical  or  the  civil  courts.  Of  course,  this  dis¬ 
posed  of  practically  all  the  outstanding  personalities 
of  the  patriarchal  party.  But  otherwise,  all  members 
of  the  Orthodox  church  possessed  the  right  of  forming 
groups  for  the  purpose  of  electing  delegates  who  would 
represent  the  particular  interests  of  their  groups.  In 
electing  delegates,  regular  (monastic)  clergy  were 
counted  on  an  equality  with  the  white,  parochial 
clergy,  while  monks  who  did  not  possess  clerical  ordina¬ 
tion  were  regarded  as  on  an  equality  with  laymen. 

The  selection  of  delegates  was  made  from  three  dif¬ 
ferent  electorates:  the  parish,  the  diocese,  the  eparchy, 
and  by  the  Supreme  Ecclesiastical  Administration. 
In  the  parishes,  all  members  eighteen  years  of  age, 
including  both  men  and  women,  possessed  the  fran¬ 
chise.  Each  parish  elected  as  many  lay  delegates, 
either  men  or  women,  as  there  were  parochial  clerics, 
but  in  no  case  less  than  three.  The  election  was  by  a 
mere  majority,  and  the  instructions  specified  that  it 
would  take  place  on  March  25. 

The  diocesan  electoral  constituency  consisted  of  all 


The  Second  All-Russian  Local  Sobor  235 

the  diocesan  clergy  and  the  delegates  who  had  been 
elected  by  the  parishes,  and  elected  five  delegates:  three 
priests  and  two  laymen.  The  same  applied  to  the 
eparchial  elections,  which  were  constituted  from  those 
who  had  been  elected  by  the  lower  ecclesiastical  bodies, 
such  as  diocesan  electorates,  and  other  such  bodies,  and 
this  body  elected  directly  for  the  Sobor;  it  sent  its 
bishop  and  four  delegates,  consisting  of  two  clerics  and 
two  laymen.  The  latter  election  was  carried  on  in  the 
presence  of  a  member  of  the  Supreme  Ecclesiastical 
Administration,  who  had  the  right  to  protest  against 
the  program  of  any  group  or  against  any  individual, 
but  the  final  judgment  in  the  case  belonged  to  the 
eparchial  body.  The  voting  proper  was  really  not  for 
individual  candidates,  but  for  party  programs ;  the  dele¬ 
gates  then  were  assigned  in  proportion  to  the  number 
of  votes  cast  for  each  party  program. 

In  addition  to  the  elective  mode  of  choosing  the 
delegates,  the  Supreme  Ecclesiastical  Administration 
possessed  the  right  to  seats  in  the  Sobor  by  virtue  of 
its  office,  and  this  provision  comprised  the  entire 
plenum;  the  same  was  true  of  the  Ecclesiastical  Admin¬ 
istrations  of  Siberia  and  the  Ukraine.  The  Supreme 
Administration,  moreover,  had  the  privilege  of  appoint¬ 
ing  twenty-five  other  members  at  its  discretion,  and 
a  substitute  for  any  elected  delegate  who  for  any 
reason  found  it  impossible  to  attend  the  Sobor.  It  also 
invited  the  representatives  of  other  Eastern  Ortho¬ 
dox  churches,  and  granted  them  the  right  to  vote; 
besides,  the  central  committees  of  the  reformist  groups 
were  permitted  to  hold  a  place  in  the  Sobor  on  the 
same  basis.  The  Russian  church  outside  of  Russia  was 
permitted  six  representatives;  non-Orthodox  Christian 
communions,  Old  Ritualists,  and  sectarians  could  also 


236  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

be  invited  to  attend,  but  had  no  vote.  The  conformist 
eparchies  had  the  right  to  send  two  representatives 
from  each  eparchy.3  Such,  then,  were  the  instruc¬ 
tions  and  general  regulations  for  the  selection  of  dele¬ 
gates  for  the  Sobor;  it  would  seem  that  the  privileges 
of  the  Supreme  Ecclesiastical  Administration  were 
rather  generous  than  otherwise,  for  the  proportion  of 
delegates  holding  seats  by  reason  of  office  or  by  appoint¬ 
ment  of  the  Supreme  Administration,  to  the  delegates 
regularly  elected,  must  have  been  considerable. 

The  sessions  of  this  most  important  ecclesiastical 
gathering  were  held  in  that  heart  of  the  reformist  move¬ 
ment,  the  church  of  Christ  the  Savior,  in  Moscow,  and 
opened  on  April  29,  1923.  On  the  platform  sat  the 
president  of  the  Supreme  Ecclesiastical  Administration, 
metropolitan  of  Moscow,  Antonin;  next  to  him  were 
Metropolitan  Peter  of  Siberia  and  Metropolitan  Tik¬ 
hon  of  Kiev.  The  service  was  begun  by  a  solemn 
liturgy,  followed  by  prayer,  whereupon  the  Sobor  was 
pronounced  officially  opened  by  Metropolitan  Antonin, 
who  greeted  it  with  a  short  address.  Following  this,  an 
address  to  the  government  embodying  a  profession  of 
loyalty  and  a  whole-hearted  acceptance  of  the  decree 
separating  the  church  from  the  state  was  voted. 

The  second  session,  held  on  May  2,  in  the  former 
Third  Seminary  building,  was  likewise  presided  over  by 
Metropolitan  Antonin,  who,  however,  soon  turned  it 
over  to  Metropolitan  Peter.  The  first  action  of  the 
Sobor  consisted  of  the  election  of  the  presidium,  which 
comprised  practically  all  the  leaders  of  the  three 
reformist  groups.  Then  the  presiding  metropolitan, 
now  Peter,  presented  the  Sobor  with  the  rules  of  pro- 

3  The  instructions  copied  from  the  official  archives  of  the  Holy 
Synod. 


The  Second  All-Russian  Local  Sob  or  237 


cedure,  and  after  these  formalities  were  disposed  of, 
greetings  which  were  sent  by  mail  or  wire  were  read, 
and  oral  greetings  brought  by  representatives  of  the 
groups  were  delivered.  Vvedensky,  in  behalf  of  the 
Ancient  Apostolic  Church,  offered  a  resolution  for 
adoption  by  the  Sobor  which  was  highly  complimentary 
to  the  government  and  its  head,  Lenin.  The  resolu¬ 
tion  read  as  follows: 

The  second  Sobor  of  the  Russian  Orthodox  Church, 
having  begun  its  labors,  expresses  its  gratitude  to  the 
All-Russian  Central  Executive  Committee  for  the  per¬ 
mission  granted  to  the  elected  sons  of  the  church  to 
meet  in  order  to  deliberate  upon  the  current  problems. 
At  the  same  time  with  these  expressions  of  gratitude 
the  Sobor  presents  its  respects  to  the  supreme  execu¬ 
tive  of  the  Workers-Peasants’  government  and  the 
world-leader,  V.  I.  Lenin. 

The  great  October  Revolution  has  carried  into  life 
the  great  principles  of  equality  in  labor  which  are 
found  in  Christian  teaching.  All  the  world  over  the 
strong  strangle  the  weak.  Only  in  Soviet  Russia  war 
has  begun  against  that  social  lie. 

The  Sobor  affirms  that  every  honorable  Christian 
should  take  his  place  among  these  warriors  for  humani¬ 
tarian  truth,  and  use  all  means  to  realize  in  life  the 
grand  principles  of  the  October  Revolution. 

To  Vladimir  Il’ich  (Lenin)  the  Sobor  wishes  a  speedy 
recovery,  so  that  he  may  again  become  the  leader  of 
the  warriors  for  the  great  social  truth.4 

This  resolution  was  adopted  unanimously.  One  is 
somewhat  curious  to  know  what  those  forty-five  dele¬ 
gates  of  the  patriarchal  party  were  thinking  about 

4  This,  as  well  as  all  following  quotations  relative  to  the  Sobor,  are 
taken  from  the  official  Acts  of  the  Second  All-Russian  Local  Sobor 
of  the  Orthodox  Church,  published  May  2,  1923. 


238  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

when  they  voted  for  this  resolution.  Or  might 
it  be  suggested  that  perhaps  the  official  minutes 
recording  the  unanimous  vote  might  be  called  in 
question? 

Among  other  greetings,  it  is  of  interest  to  note  that 
one  came  from  the  American  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  North,  which  body  was  represented  by  its 
Parisian  bishop,  Dr.  Edgar  Blake,  and  the  editor  of 
Zion's  Herald ,  Dr.  L.  0.  Hartman.  Dr.  Blake  pointed 
out  in  his  speech  that  to  his  mind  the  reformist  move¬ 
ment  attested  the  birth  of  a  new  life  in  the  church 
of  Russia.  Russia  was  the  first  to  make  it  its  task 
to  serve  the  downtrodden  classes.  The  role  of  the 
church  in  this  great  service  may  be  significant,  and 
the  church  “should  go  hand  in  hand  with  those  who 
protect  the  interests  of  the  downtrodden  masses.”6 
Bishop  Blake  was  chosen  by  the  Sobor  an  honorary 
member  of  that  body.  It  may  be  remarked  here, 
although  it  is  out  of  its  chronological  place,  that  he 
and  Dr.  Hartman  were  so  deeply  impressed  with  the 
needs  of  the  Russian  church,  especially  in  the  matter 
of  educating  its  future  ministry,  that  together  they 
underwrote  the  educational  program  of  the  church  for 
fifty  thousand  dollars,  to  be  raised  in  America  during 
the  next  three  years.  This  fund  was  to  enable  the 
church  to  open  a  theological  academy  in  Moscow  for 
the  training  of  priests,  for  it  was  estimated  that 
three  thousand  five  hundred  priests  were  needed  annu¬ 
ally  to  fill  up  the  vacancies.  As  no  such  school  had 
existed  hitherto  (since  the  October  Revolution  in 
1917),  this  was  to  be  the  beginning  of  a  renewed 
educational  program  in  the  Russian  church.  In  order 


6  Acts,  p.  4. 


The  Second  All-Russian  Local  Sobor  239 

to  defend  himself  against  his  many  critics,  Bishop 
Blake  explicitly  stated  that  “none  of  our  denomina¬ 
tional  Boards  are  involved.  Not  even  the  Methodist 
Church  is  responsible  for  this  gift.  Only  Dr.  Hart¬ 
man  and  myself,  who  made  the  pledge,  and  Bishop 
Nuelson,  who  approved  it,  are  responsible  for  it.  The 
obligation  and  the  burden  are  ours  alone,  and  having 
gone  forward,  we  shall  not  turn  back.”  6 

The  most  dramatic  as  well  as  important  of  the  ses¬ 
sions  of  the  Sobor  was  held  on  May  3,  when  the  case 
of  Patriarch  Tikhon  came  up  for  action.  The  official 
Acts  give  a  long  series  of  “theses”  which  presumably 
were  the  points  in  the  speeches  reviewing  the  activity 
of  the  patriarch  and  presenting  the  arguments  for  his 
deposition.  One  cannot  but  wish  that  the  secretary  had 
rather  given  us  the  actual  proceedings,  to  enable  us  to 
form  a  clear  idea  of  the  progress  of  the  important 
session  step  by  step.  Such  a  description  of  the  trial 
does  not  appear  in  the  minutes.  In  fact,  there  really 
was  no  trial  in  the  proper  sense  of  that  word.  In  the 
first  place,  Patriarch  Tikhon  was  not  present,  for  he 
was  at  the  time  still  in  prison ;  he  was  not  even  repre¬ 
sented  by  counsel,  and  doubtless,  had  he  been  cited 
before  the  tribunal  of  the  Sobor,  he  would  have  refused 
to  appear.  Such  trials  have  usually  been  regarded  as 
uncanonical  by  the  church,  and  there  is  not  the  slight¬ 
est  occasion  for  surprise  when  we  find  that  to  have  been 
exactly  the  attitude  of  a  considerable  numerical 
majority  of  the  church  after  the  patriarch’s  release 
from  prison. 

The  official  minutes,  then,  after  stating  the  “theses” 
against  Tikhon,  go  on  to  inform  us  that  the  hierarchical 

0  The  Christian  Work ,  Aug.  4,  1923. 


240  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

council  at  the  Sobor  passed  the  following  resolution 
regarding  the  patriarch : 

After  adjudicating  the  activity  of  Patriarch  Tikhon, 
the  episcopal  council  came  to  the  unanimous  decision 
that  Patriarch  Tikhon  is  subject,  before  the  conscience 
of  the  believers,  to  the  heaviest  penalty :  to  the  punish¬ 
ment  of  deprivation  of  his  clerical  orders  and  of  his 
patriarchal  office,  because  he  has  directed  all  his  powers 
of  moral  and  ecclesiastical  authority  toward  the  over¬ 
throwing  of  the  existing  civil  and  social  order  of  our 
life,  and  thus  brought  into  jeopardy  the  very  existence 
of  the  church.7 

This  resolution  was  signed  by  four  metropolitans, 
Antonin,  Nicholas  of  Kharkov,  Peter  of  Siberia,  and 
Tikhon  of  Kiev;  twenty-six  archbishops,  and  twenty- 
four  bishops — fifty-four  hierarchs  altogether.  But 
since  the  official  report  itself  lists  sixty-six  bishops 
(leaving  out  Archbishop  Alexander  Vvedensky,  who 
was  elevated  to  the  episcopacy  a  day  later),  it  is  evi¬ 
dent  that  twelve  bishops  must  have  refused  to  sign 
the  decision;  but  this  is  not  definitely  specified. 

Thereupon,  after  an  impassioned  speech  delivered 
by  Vvedensky,  which  according  to  one  report  lasted 
two  and  one-half  hours,  the  presiding  metropolitan 
offered  the  following  resolution: 

Having  heard  the  report  of  Archpriest  A.  Vvedensky, 
the  All-Russian  Local  Sobor  of  the  Orthodox  Church 
witnesses  before  the  church  and  before  all  mankind  that 
at  present  the  world  has  become  divided  into  two 
classes:  capitalists-exploiters,  and  the  proletariat,  by 
whose  toil  and  blood  the  capitalistic  world  builds  its 
prosperity.  No  one  in  the  world  but  the  Soviet  govern¬ 
ment  of  Russia  has  undertaken  a  struggle  against  this 

7  Acte,  p.  6. 


The  Second  All-Russian  Local  Sob  or  241 

social  evil.  Christians  cannot  remain  indifferent 
spectators  of  that  struggle.  The  Sobor  declares 
capitalism  to  be  a  mortal  sin,  and  the  fight  against  it  to 
be  sacred  for  Christians.  The  Sobor  sees  in  the  Soviet 
government  the  world  leader  toward  fraternity, 
equality,  and  international  peace.  The  Sobor 
denounces  the  international  and  domestic  counter¬ 
revolution,  and  condemns  it  with  all  its  religious  and 
moral  authority. 

The  Sobor  calls  upon  every  honest  Christian  citizen 
of  Russia  to  go  forth  to  battle,  in  united  front,  under 
the  guidance  of  the  Soviet  government,  against  the 
world-evil  of  social  wrong. 

The  Holy  Sobor  of  1923  of  the  Orthodox  Church, 
having  deliberated  on  the  condition  of  the  church  dur¬ 
ing  the  time  of  the  revolution,  has  resolved: 

1.  Beginning  with  the  summer  of  1917,  responsible 
leaders  of  the  church  assumed  a  definitely  counter- 
revolutionary  point  of  view.  The  church  must  reestab¬ 
lish  the  unity  of  the  tsarist  Russia — such  was  the  slogan 
which  the  church  chose  to  follow  (having  been  so 
closely  bound  with  tsarism  prior  to  the  revolution). 
The  Sobor  of  1917,  composed  largely  of  representa¬ 
tives  of  the  reactionary  clergy  as  well  as  of  the  high 
nobility,  property  owners,  and  members  of  reaction¬ 
ary  political  parties,  became  at  the  very  outset  a 
definitely  political  counter-revolutionary  gathering 
which  merely  covered  all  these  actions  with  the  name 
of  Christ  the  Savior.  The  Sobor  fought  against  the 
revolution.  It  did  not  recognize  even  the  Provisional 
Government,  and  after  October  this  struggle  assumed 
perfectly  incredible  proportions. 

After  the  meeting  of  the  Sobor,  Patriarch  Tikhon 
continued  this  counter-revolutionary  activity.  He 
became  the  leader  and  standard-bearer  of  all  opponents 
of  the  Soviet  government.  He  drove  the  church  into 
the  counter-revolutionary  struggle. 


242  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

The  Holy  Sobor  of  1923  of  the  Orthodox  Church 
condemns  the  counter-revolutionary  struggle  and  its 
methods,  which  are  the  methods  of  man-hatred. 
Especially  does  the  Sobor  of  1923  deplore  the  anathe¬ 
matization  of  the  Soviet  government  and  of  all  who 
recognize  it.  The  Sobor  declares  this  anathematiza¬ 
tion  TO  HAVE  NO  FORCE. 

2.  The  Sobor  of  1923  condemns  all  those  who  have 
followed  this  path  and  persuaded  others  to  follow 
them.  And  this  applies,  first  of  all,  to  the  responsible 
leader  of  our  church  life,  Patriarch  Tikhon.  Whereas 
Patriarch  Tikhon  served  the  counter-revolution 
instead  of  sincerely  serving  Christ,  and,  since  he  is  the 
person  who  was  supposed  to  direct  properly  all  ecclesi¬ 
astical  life,  but  as  on  the  contrary  he  led  astray  the 
broad  masses  of  the  church,  the  Sobor  regards  Tikhon 
as  an  apostate  from  the  original  commands  of  Christ 
and  a  traitor  to  the  church.  On  the  basis  of  the  canons 
of  the  church,  it  hereby  declares  him  to  be 

DEPRIVED  OF  HIS  CLERICAL  ORDERS  AND  MONKHOOD, 
AND  RELEGATED  TO  HIS  ORIGINAL  LAY  CONDITION. 

Hereafter  Patriarch  Tikhon  is  layman  Basil 
Belavin. 

3.  The  representatives  of  the  reformist  church 
movement  have  severed  all  connection  with  the 
counter-revolution,  and  have  thereby  earned  for  them¬ 
selves  the  disapprobation  of  all  reactionary  church¬ 
men.  The  Holy  Sobor  of  1923  declares  that  all  such 
interdictory  measures  have  no  force  whatever.  On  the 
contrary,  the  Sobor  approves  the  courage  of  these  men 
and  their  devotion  to  the  church,  which  they  have 
rescued  from  the  hands  of  the  counter-revolution  and 
are  restoring  to  Christ  the  Savior. 

4.  The  Holy  Sobor  urges  all  churchmen  to  abandon 
all  attempts  to  use  the  church  for  temporal  political 
schemes,  for  the  church  belongs  to  God  and  must 
serve  Him  only.  There  must  be  no  place  in  the  church 


The  Second  All-Russian  Local  Sob  or  243 

for  counter-revolution.  The  Soviet  government  is  not 
a  persecutor  of  the  church.  In  accordance  with  the 
constitution  of  the  Soviet  government,  all  citizens  are 
granted  genuine  religious  freedom  of  conscience.  The 
decree  regarding  the  separation  of  the  church  from 
the  state  guarantees  such  freedom.  The  freedom  of 
religious  equally  with  anti-religious  propaganda 
affords  the  believers  an  opportunity  to  defend  by  argu¬ 
ment  the  merits  of  their  purely  religious  convictions. 
Hence  churchmen  must  not  see  in  the  Soviet  authority 
the  antichrist;  on  the  contrary,  the  Sobor  calls  atten¬ 
tion  to  the  fact  that  the  Soviet  authority  is  the  only 
one  throughout  the  world  which  will  realize,  by  gov¬ 
ernmental  methods,  the  ideals  of  the  Kingdom  of  God. 
Therefore  every  faithful  churchman  must  not  only  be 
an  honorable  citizen,  but  also  fight  with  all  his  might, 
together  with  the  Soviet  authority,  for  the  realization 
of  the  Kingdom  of  God  upon  earth. 

5.  Condemning  the  former  patriarch  Tikhon  as  a  1 
leader  of  counter-revolution  and  not  of  the  church,  the 
Sobor  holds  that  the  very  restoration  of  the  patri¬ 
archate  was  a  definitely  political  counter-revolutionary 
act.  The  ancient  church  knew  no  patriarch  and  was 
governed  conciliarly;  hence  the  Holy  Sobor  hereby 
abolishes  the  restored  patriarchate:  hereafter  the 
church  shall  be  governed  by  the  Sobor. 

6.  Condemning  counter-revolution  within  the 
church,  punishing  its  leaders,  abolishing  the  institu¬ 
tion  of  the  patriarchate  itself,  and  recognizing  the 
existing  governmental  authority,  the  Sobor  creates 
normal  conditions  of  peaceful  progress  of  ecclesiastical 
life.  Henceforth  all  church  life  should  be  based  upon 
two  principles:  (1)  with  respect  to  God,  upon  a 
genuine  devotion  of  church  people  to  the  original  com¬ 
mands  of  Christ  the  Savior;  (2)  with  respect  to  the 
government,  upon  the  principle  of  separation  of  the 
church  from  the  state. 


244  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

Building  upon  these  foundations,  the  church  will 
become  what  it  ought  to  be:  a  loving,  laboring  com¬ 
pany  of  those  who  believe  in  God,  his  Christ,  and 
his  truth.8 

This  was  a  decision  of  tremendous,  far-reaching 
importance,  and  its  consequences  were  disastrous:  it 
meant  an  irrevocable  split  within  the  church.  Were 
there  protests  against  these  extreme  charges  of 
“apostate”  and  “traitor”  applied  to  the  patriarch? 
Was  it  pointed  out  that  the  fact  the  patriarch  was  being 
sentenced  in  his  absence,  and  without  the  possibility 
of  defending  himself,  was  a  serious,  possibly  invalidat¬ 
ing,  circumstance  which  told  heavily  against  the  action 
of  the  Sobor?  How  did  the  members  of  the  patriarchal 
party  vote?  How  was  the  vote  carried,  anyway?  All 
these  are  questions  to  which  the  official  Acts  of  the 
Sobor  supply  no  answer.  Incredible  though  it  may 
seem,  there  is  no  record  in  the  Acts  whether  or  not  the 
resolution  deposing  Tikhon  and  abolishing  the  patri¬ 
archate  was  carried.  Presumably  it  must  have  been, 
because  the  group  which  was  committed  to  such  an 
action  since  August  of  the  preceding  year — the  Living 
Church — had  an  absolute  majority  on  its  side.  Yet, 
it  would  have  been  of  importance  to  know  how  the 
rest  voted.  No  matter  what  we  say  regarding  Secre¬ 
tary  Novikov’s  qualities  as  an  ecclesiastical  politician, 
as  a  historian,  he  fails  woefully :  to  record  immediately 
after  the  resolution  above  given  nothing  beyond  the 
laconic,  “the  session  was  closed  at  five  o’clock  in  the 
evening  with  the  chanting  of  prayer,”  is  nothing  less 
than  failing  of  one’s  duty  as  a  secretary.  Yet  that  is 
all  the  information  the  published  official  Acts  yield. 

The  same  evening,  another  measure,  no  less  revolu- 

8  Acts,  pp.  6-8. 


The  Second  All-Russian  Local  Sobor  245 

tionary  for  the  church  of  Russia,  was  adopted;  this 
was  a  measure  regarding  the  eligibility  of  the  white 
priesthood  for  the  episcopal  order.  After  a  period  of 
discussion  of  the  subject  (during  which  the  only  per¬ 
son  who  opposed  the  measure,  Bishop  Leonty  of  Vol- 
hynia,  was  deprived  of  the  right  to  speak  “because  he 
had  not  held  to  his  subject”) ,  the  measure  was  finally 
voted  upon  in  the  same  order  as  the  previous  one,  the 
episcopal  council  first  expressing  its  judgment  upon  the 
matter,  after  which  it  was  submitted  to  the  entire 
Sobor  for  decision.  It  was  quite  obvious  from  the  dis¬ 
cussions  as  well  as  from  the  decisions  themselves  that 
the  measure  was  not  dictated  by  mere  theoretical 
desire  “to  restore  the  early  practice,”  but  that  its 
mainspring  was  to  be  found  in  the  urgent  need  of  the 
reformist  groups  to  have  a  like-minded  episcopate,  a 
need  which  the  monastic  candidates,  as  a  rule,  failed 
to  meet.  It  was,  therefore,  the  practical  necessity  of 
having  an  episcopate  which  would  share  the  reformist 
ideals,  and  thus  put  them  into  practical  operation  in  the 
conduct  of  church  affairs  (control  of  which,  of  course, 
was  largely  in  the  hands  of  the  hierarchy) ,  that  obliged 
the  Sobor  to  adopt  this  measure,  which  in  itself  could 
be  foreseen  as  likely  to  cause  a  great  deal  of  trouble 
in  the  future.  The  episcopal  decision  read  as  follows: 

The  practice  of  the  Russian  church  hitherto  followed 
the  rule  of  having  an  unmarried,  and  specifically  a 
monastic,  episcopacy.  During  the  present  revolu¬ 
tionary  times  a  married  episcopacy  was  admitted.  The 
Supreme  Ecclesiastical  Administration  approved  of 
married  bishops  in  Voronezh,  and  the  Episcopal 
Advisory  Council  of  the  Sobor,  in  its  session  of  May  1, 
1923,  admitted  into  canonical  fellowship  the  married 
episcopate  of  Siberia.  At  present,  under  the  urgent 


246  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

demands  of  life,  the  Episcopal  Advisory  Council  of 
the  Sobor  rules:  not  to  regard  the  married  state  as  a 
bar  to  the  episcopal  office,  and  beginning  with  May  3, 
1923,  to  admit  to  it  the  single,  unmarried,  as  well  as 
the  married  candidates. 

The  resolution  adopted  by  the  Sobor  was  supported 
by  more  specious  references  to  the  canonicity  of  the 
action,  and  exhibited  the  legal  basis  upon  which  it 
rested: 

« 

Following  the  plain  and  immutable  witness  of  the 
Holy  Writ  (I  Timothy  iii.  2-4;  Titus  i.  6-9,)  which  is 
the  fundamental  source  of  the  Christian  faith  and  piety, 
and  in  pursuance  of  the  findings  of  the  most  ancient 
memorials  of  Christian  literature,  the  canons  of  the 
holy  Apostles  (rules  5,  40,  51)  and  the  decisions  of 
the  ecumenical  and  local  Sobor  (First  Ecumenical 
Council,  17:  Carthaginian  Council,  4,  rules  3,  25,  71; 
Fourth  Ecumenical  Council,  rule  4) ;  also  taking  into 
consideration  the  practice  of  the  Eastern  churches  and 
the  Greek  church,  in  which  as  late  as  the  twelfth 
century,  the  married  episcopacy  was  of  common  occur¬ 
rence,  and  finally,  taking  heed  of  the  contemporary 
situation  in  the  Russian  church,  which  the  monastic 
episcopate,  with  a  few  exceptions,  showed  itself 
unsuited  to  cope  with,  the  Second  All-Russian  Local 
Sobor  deems  it  absolutely  necessary  to  admit  to  the 
episcopal  office  the  white,  married  clergy  equally  with 
unmarried  persons.0 

The  concomitant  project  of  permitting  the  clergy  to 
marry  a  second  time,  which  the  August  conference  of 
the  Living  Church  had  inserted  into  its  platform,  was 
acted  upon  the  next  day,  when  it  was  voted  to  permit 
a  second  marriage  to  priests,  but  not  to  bishops; 

*  Acts,  p.  8. 


The  Second  All-Russian  Local  Sobor  247 

furthermore,  to  permit  priests  to  marry  widows  and 
divorcees;  and  finally,  to  reinstate  into  priesthood 
such  as  were  unfrocked  on  account  of  having  con¬ 
tracted  a  second  marriage.  In  addition,  the  Sobor 
adopted  other  resolutions  of  greater  or  less  revolution¬ 
ary  nature  and  interest,  such  as  the  one  regarding  the 
relics  of  the  saints,  which  the  government  had  found, 
upon  official  investigation,  to  have  been  grossly  falsi¬ 
fied  in  many  cases  and  with  which  astounding  frauds 
were  being  perpetrated.  All  such  falsifications  were 
severely  condemned  by  the  Sobor,  which  likewise  issued 
instructions  as  to  the  method  of  procedure  regarding 
the  matter  in  the  future.  The  enmity  toward  the 
monasteries  and  monkhood  in  general,  which  was  the 
chief  characteristic  of  the  Living  Church  group,  was 
very  much  in  evidence  when  that  subject  came  to  be 
discussed  by  the  Sobor.  The  legislation  finally  passed 
by  that  body  regarding  the  monastic  establishments 
was  correspondingly  harsh;  it  was  passed  by  a  majority 
vote  that  monasteries  should  be  closed  as  having  aban¬ 
doned  the  pure  monastic  ideal;  but  their  place  should 
be  taken  by  communistic  brotherhoods  who  would 
work  for  the  uplift  of  the  people.  Funrthermore,  in 
accordance  with  the  motion  of  Metropolitan  Antonin, 
the  Sobor  unanimously  adopted  the  Gregorian  calendar 
and  ruled  to  put  it  into  execution  on  June  12,  1923. 
It  will  be  remembered  that  the  old  Russian  calendar 
was  thirteen  days  behind  the  one  in  use  in  the  Western 
countries,  and  this  caused  a  great  deal  of  inconvenience. 
This  reform  was  inaugurated  simultaneously  with  the 
same  measure  having  been  adopted  by  other  Eastern 
Orthodox  churches:  the  Sobor  of  Athos  had  adopted 
it  on  March  1,  1923,  and  the  patriarch  of  Constanti¬ 
nople  and  his  Synod  had  confirmed  it  on  June  15.  By 


248  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

another  radical  measure,  urged  by  Vvedensky  and 
Krasnitsky,  and  adopted  by  the  Sobor,  it  was  ruled  that 
on  account  of  the  known  counter-revolutionary  activ¬ 
ity  of  the  Russian  priesthood  and  hierarchs  outside 
of  Russia,  all  these  members  of  the  Russian  clergy  were 
cut  off  from  the  church.  The  members  of  the  Kar- 
lovtsi  Sobor  of  1921  wer©  explicitly  named  in  this 
resolution. 

In  the  last  session  of  the  Sobor,  the  presidium  of 
the  Sobor,  in  recognition  of  his  great  services  in  behalf 
of  the  reformist  movement,  voted  to  confer  upon  Arch¬ 
priest  V.  D.  Krasnitsky,  the  head  of  the  Living  Church 
group,  the  great  honor  of  the  archbishopric  of  Petro- 
grad,  but  for  reasons  which  were  not  even  hinted  at  in 
the  official  Acts,  that  leader  energetically  refused  the 
tempting  offer.  Thereupon  the  Sobor  at  least  conferred 
upon  him  the  rank  of  a  protopresbyter,  which  he 
accepted.  The  other  dominant  figure  of  the  reformist 
movement,  Archpriest  Alexander  Vvedensky,  had  been 
elevated,  some  days  before,  to  the  dignity  of  Metro¬ 
politan  Krutitsky,  which  post  represents  the  vicariate 
of  Moscow. 

The  plenum  of  the  Supreme  Ecclesiastical  Adminis¬ 
tration  was  likewise  organized  with  the  legalizing 
approval  of  the  Sobor,  and  comprised  eighteen 
members,  of  which  ten  were  chosen  from  the  Living 
Church  group,  with  Krasnitsky  as  their  leader;  six 
from  the  Ancient  Apostolic  Church,  with  Vvedensky 
as  their  head,  and  two  from  the  Churchly  Regenera¬ 
tion,  the  smallest  of  the  groups,  of  which  Metropolitan 
Antonin,  the  president  of  the  plenum,  retained  his 
leadership.  This  proportion  of  representation  on  the 
plenum  was  determined  by  the  relative  size  of  the 


The  Second  All-Russian  Local  Sob  or  249 

groups,  and  is  therefore  a  good  index  to  the  member¬ 
ship  of  the  reformist  parties. 

The  Second  Sobor  of  the  Russian  Orthodox  Church 
closed  its  sessions  on  May  9  with  solemn  services  held 
in  the  church  of  Christ  the  Savior,  having  accom¬ 
plished  everything  that  the  August  conference  of  the 
Living  Church  had  planned  for  it.  There  was  no  deny¬ 
ing  the  fact  that  the  work  accomplished  was  of  a  revo¬ 
lutionary  character;  the  dubious  canonicity  of  some  of 
the  most  outstanding  acts  of  this  Sobor,  especially  the 
harsh  and  unjustifiably  ruthless  condemnation  of 
Tikhon,  was  sure  to  be  attacked,  as  the  immediate 
future  was  to  manifest  only  too  amply.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  could  not  be  denied  that  the  profuse  and 
ardent  professions  of  loyalty  to  the  government,  and 
the  determined  and  loud  condemnation  of  the  former 
“counter-revolutionary  activity”  of  the  church,  could 
not  fail  to  restore  in  a  measure  normal  relations 
between  the  government  and  the  church,  which  must 
be  appraised  as  a  great  gain.  The  many  really  good 
reforms  fathered  by  these  groups,  considering  them 
apart  from  the  unwise  methods  of  execution,  would 
have  been  greatly  beneficial  to  the  church  had  they 
been  adopted  with  the  consent  of  the  entire  church, 
instead  of  being  forced  by  a  minority  upon  an  unwilling 
majority. 

But  alas,  for  the  plans  of  mice  and  men!  The 
utterly  unexpected  had  happened!  When  everybody 
expected  that  Patriarch  Tikhon,  who  had  now  been 
imprisoned  for  about  a  year,  would  be  brought  to 
trial,  the  outcome  of  which  could  hardly  be  in  question ; 
when  the  action  of  the  Sobor  in  deposing  him  and 
abolishing  the  patriarchate  rested  upon  the  assumption 


250  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

that  Tikhon  needed  no  longer  to  be  reckoned  with; 
when,  in  short,  Tikhon  was  looked  upon  as  being  as 
good  as  dead,  the  most  unexpected  thing  happened.  In 
the  first  place,  the  trial  which  had  been  in  preparation 
for  a  year,  and  which  was  announced  in  the  papers  as 
haying  been  set  for  a  certain  date  for  which  even 
admission  tickets  had  been  distributed,  was  then 
almost  at  the  last  moment  called  off.  The  reason  for 
this  which  appeared  an  inexplicable  enigma  was  not 
divulged  till  later,  when  the  papers  brought  the 
astounding  news  that  the  day  before  the  trial  Patriarch 
Tikhon  appealed  to  the  Supreme  Court  with  the  fol¬ 
lowing  declaration,  which  has  since  received  the  name 
of  Tikhon’s  “Confession” : 

Appealing  with  the  present  declaration  to  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  Russian  Soviet  Federation  of 
Socialistic  Republics,  I  regard  it  as  my  duty,  dictated 
by  my  pastoral  conscience,  to  declare  the  following: 

Having  been  nurtured  in  a  monarchist  society,  and 
until  my  arrest  having  been  under  the  influence  of 
anti-Soviet  individuals,  I  was  filled  with  hos¬ 
tility  against  the  Soviet  authorities,  and  at  times  my 
hostility  passed  from  passivity  to  active  measures, 
as  in  the  instance  of  the  proclamation  on  the  occasion 
of  the  Brest-Litovsky  peace  in  1918,  the  anathematiz¬ 
ing  of  the  authorities  in  that  same  year,  and  finally, 
the  appeal  against  the  decree  regarding  the  removal  of 
church  treasures  in  1922.  All  my  anti-Soviet  acts, 
with  the  exception  of  a  few  inexactitudes,  were  stated 
in  the  act  of  accusation  drawn  up  by  the  Supreme 
Court.  Acknowledging  the  correctness  of  the  accusa¬ 
tions  of  the  Supreme  Court  and  its  sentence  as  con¬ 
forming  to  the  clauses  of  the  criminal  code,  I  repent 
of  all  my  actions  directed  against  the  government  and 


The  Second  All-Russian  Local  Sobor  251 

petition  the  Supreme  Court  to  change  its  sentence  and 
to  set  me  free. 

I  declare  hereby  to  the  Soviet  authorities  that 
henceforth  I  am  no  more  an  enemy  to  the  Soviet  gov¬ 
ernment,  and  that  I  have  completely  and  resolutely 
severed  all  connections  with  the  foreign  and  domestic 
monarchists  and  the  counter-revolutionary  activity  of 
the  White  Guards.10 

The  publication  of  this  startling  declaration,  as  well 
as  the  release  of  the  patriarch  from  prison  consequent 
upon  it,  caused,  as  may  well  be  imagined,  an  immense 
amount  of  stir  and  diverse  comment.  The  patriarchal 
party  was  grievously  shocked  with  the  patriarch’s 
declaration,  so  frankly  conceding  his  share  in  the  anti- 
governmental  activity;  adherents  of  the  reformist 
group  were  equally  perturbed  over  the  possibilities  of 
complications  which  the  release  of  the  patriarch 
implied.  On  the  part  of  the  former,  various  attempts 
were  made  to  explain  the  patriarch’s  “confession”  as 
a  forgery,  or  at  least  as  a  composition  which  he  was 
constrained  by  threats  or  blandishments  to  write,  or 
that  it  was  written  for  him,  and  he,  an  old  man  weak¬ 
ened  in  health  by  the  rigors  of  his  imprisonment,  was 
inveigled  to  sign  it.  But  all  such  hypotheses  broke 
down  before  the  simple,  unequivocal  acknowledgment 
of  it  by  the  patriarch  himself,  made  several  times 
subsequently.  Dr.  Julius  F.  Hecker  of  Moscow,  who 
had  been  appointed  by  the  Sobor  of  1923  secretary 
of  the  educational  committee,  told  the  writer  person¬ 
ally  that  he  and  Bishop  Nuelson  of  the  American 
M.  E.  Church,  North,  visited  the  patriarch  some  time 
after  his  release  and  questioned  him  concerning  the 

10  Izvestiy a,  No.  141,  June  27,  1923. 


252  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

rumored  unauthenticity  of  his  “Confession.”  Patriarch 
Tikhon  replied  to  them  in  clear,  unambiguous  language 
that  the  document  was  written  by  himself,  and  that 
he  was  neither  forced  to  write  it  nor  threatened;  it 
was  suggested  to  him  by  the  authorities  that  he  might 
gain  his  freedom  if  he  should  make  some  such  con¬ 
fession,  and  he  freely  complied  with  that  suggestion. 
Dr.  Hecker’s  own  theory  was  that  the  evidence  against 
Tikhon  was  so  complete  and  overwhelming  that  he 
knew  he  could  not  escape  condemnation,  and  hence 
availed  himself  of  the  offer  of  the  government. 

But  what  could  be  the  reason  actuating  the  govern¬ 
ment  to  release  the  patriarch?  What  did  the  govern¬ 
ment  gain?  Although  never  officially  stated,  the 
motives  need  not  be  regarded  as  mysterious  or  unfath¬ 
omable.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  fairly  easy  to  recon¬ 
struct  them  with  a  certain  degree  of  confidence.  In 
the  first  place,  the  confession  of  Patriarch  Tikhon,  in 
which  he  voluntarily  acknowledged  his  former  counter¬ 
revolutionary  activity,  and  sued  for  mercy,  on  the 
basis  of  his  promise  to  cease  his  self-confessed  hostile 
activity,  was  far  more  valuable  for  the  purposes  of  the 
government  than  a  theoretical  satisfaction  of  justice 
by  infliction  of  the  death  penalty  upon  him,  even 
though  the  government  possessed  no  matter  how  much 
of  conclusive  evidence  of  the  patriarch’s  guilt.  Sec¬ 
ondly,  the  infliction  of  the  death  penalty  upon  the 
patriarch  would  have  stirred  up  the  outside  world  to  a 
still  more  violent  prejudice  against  Russia,  as  the  trial 
and  execution  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Budkevich  had 
done.  The  outside  pressure,  especially  such  as  was 
exerted  by  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  through  the 
English  government,  must  have  had  some  weight  with 
the  Russian  authorities  also.  Finally,  as  there  was 


The  Second  All-Russian  Local  Sob  or 

nothing  for  the  government  to  gain  from  the  death 
of  Tikhon,  they  were  astute  enough  to  perceive  that 
there  were  considerable  chances  of  gain  in  releasing 
him.  A  cartoon  which  appeared  about  that  time  in 
the  Workman's  Moscow11  may  be  presumed  to  inter¬ 
pret  correctly  the  expectations  which  the  authorities 
cherished :  the  patriarch  is  there  seen  in  a  violent  hand- 
to-hand  struggle  with  another  priest  (presumably 
Krasnitsky,  or  Antonin),  while  a  grinning  workman 
stands  by,  his  hands  in  his  pockets.  The  cartoon  bears 
the  title:  “When  two  are  engaged  in  a  scuffle,  the 
hands  of  the  third  are  free.”  The  Soviet  govern¬ 
ment,  always  unfriendly  to  the  church,  may  be  pre¬ 
sumed  to  have  foreseen  the  latent  possibilities  of  con¬ 
flict  which  was  certain  to  break  out  upon  the  patriarch’s 
release,  and  there  is  little  reason  to  suppose  that  it 
would  have  been  unwilling  to  avoid  it.  Thus  the 
government  was  certain  to  gain  more  than  it  lost  by 
the  release  of  the  patriarch. 

Tikhon,  of  course,  ascribed  his  release  to  a  different, 
though  utterly  improbable  and  even  palpably  self- 
contradictory  reason.  In  an  interview  with  a  repre¬ 
sentative  of  The  Manchester  Guardian,  the  patriarch 
was  reported  to  have  made  the  following  comment: 

I  have  never  sought  to  overthrow  the  government. 
In  1918,  I  stood  openly  against  some  of  its  decrees.  I 
am  not  a  counter-revolutionary,  in  spite  of  the  fact 
that  some  of  my  appeals  had  an  anti-Soviet  character. 
The  power  of  the  Soviet  government  has  greatly 
increased  in  Russia;  and  it  has  undergone  various 
developments.  We,  the  members  of  the  old  clergy, 
are  not  now  struggling  against  the  Soviets,  but  against 
the  Livina  Church. 


11  July  154  1923. 


254  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

What  were  the  causes  of  your  liberation  and  the 
change  in  the  attitude  of  the  Soviet  government 
toward  you? 

I  am  persuaded  that,  having  studied  my  case,  the 
government  became  convinced  that  I  was  no  counter¬ 
revolutionary.  It  was  suggested  that  I  should  make 
a  public  declaration  of  the  fact,  and  I  wrote  a  letter 
to  say  so. 

Unfortunately,  this  theory  of  the  patriarch  con¬ 
flicts  with  his  own  admissions  in  the  “Confession.” 
The  first  part  of  the  interview,  where  Tikhon  claims 
to  be  no  counter-revolutionary,  may  be  understood  in 
the  sense  that  at  the  time  he  was  speaking  he  no 
longer  was  one;  but  the  latter  part  where  he  suggests 
that  the  authorities  became  convinced  of  his  non¬ 
counter-revolutionary  course  flatly  contradicts  such 
phrases  as:  “I  was  filled  with  hostility  against 
the  Soviet  authorities”;  “Acknowledging  the  correct¬ 
ness  of  the  accusations  of  the  Supreme  Court  ...  I 
repent  of  all  my  actions  directed  against  the  govern¬ 
ment,”  etc.  If  the  latter  were  not  true,  why  did  he 
freely  make  those  declarations  at  the  time  of  his 
release? 

His  acknowledgment  cost  the  patriarch  the  loss  of  the 
extreme  monarchical  faction,  mostly  outside  of  Russia, 
which  wished  to  use  the  church  for  its  political  restora- 
tionist  ends.  This  emigre  clergy  had  caused  him  an 
immense  amount  of  mischievous  harm,  in  discrediting 
him  and  the  church  in  the  eyes  of  the  government  by 
their  unwise  pronouncements  and  propaganda,  espe¬ 
cially  those  associated  with  the  Karlovtsi  Sobor.  Within 
Russia,  the  church,  as  far  as  the  bulk  of  the  people  and 
the  clergy  were  concerned,  rallied  round  him  loyally 
and  with  enthusiasm. 


The  Second  All-Russian  Local  Sobor  255 

Almost  as  soon  as  he  regained  liberty,  Patriarch 
Tikhon  set  about  his  conflict  with  the  usurping 
Supreme  Ecclesiastical  Administration,  which  had  been 
set  up  the  previous  year.  Taking  up  his  residence 
again  in  the  Donskoy  Monastery,  he  issued,  on  July 
15,  1923,  a  public  proclamation  wherein  he  stigmatized 
the  entire  work  of  the  leaders  of  the  Living  Church  and 
the  other  factions  as  a  barefaced  usurpation  and  fraud. 
This  curious  document  is  so  valuable  as  giving 
Tikhon’s  version  of  the  events  since  his  imprisonment, 
that  in  accordance  with  the  original  design  of  the  book 
it  is  deemed  best  to  incorporate  it  in  its  entirety: 

-f 

By  the  Lord’s  mercy,  we,  humble  Tikhon,  patriarch 
of  Moscow  and  of  all  Russia,  to  the  most  holy  episco¬ 
pate,  priests,  and  honored  monks,  and  to  all  faithful 
children  of  the  Russian  Orthodox  Church:  God’s  peace 
and  blessing. 

More  than  a  year  ago,  in  consequence  of  circum¬ 
stances  well  known  to  all,  we  had  been  set  aside  from 
our  pastoral  ministry,  and  have  since  not  been  able  to 
stand  personally  at  the  helm  of  the  administration  to 
guard  the  age-hallowed  traditions  of  the  church. 

Therefore,  as  soon  as  circumstances  demanded  it,  we, 
strictly  conforming  to  the  regulations  of  the  Sobor 
which  instituted  the  rules  of  patriarchal  administration 
of  the  Russian  church,  and  in  compliance  with  the 
resolution  of  the  Holy  Synod  associated  with  us,  passed 
on  November  7,  1920,  considered  it  advantageous 
to  transfer  the  fullness  of  spiritual  power,  during  the 
time  of  our  retirement  from  office,  to  a  substitute 
appointed  by  ourselves,  the  metropolitan  of  Yaroslavl, 
Agathangel.  He  was  to  convoke  a  second  local  Sobor 
of  the  Russian  church  for  the  purpose  of  ordering  the 
Supreme  Ecclesiastical  Administration  and  other  needs 
of  the  church.  We  had  been  informed  that  the  civil 


256  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

authorities  were  not  opposed  to  it,  and  Metropolitan 
Agathangel  accepted  the  task  we  had  charged  him  with. 
But  for  reasons  over  which  he  had  no  control,  he  could 
not  enter  upon  the  fulfillment  of  his  obligations. 
Ambitious  and  self-willed  individuals  made  use  of  it, 
and  not  “entering  by  the  door,  but  climbing  up  another 
way”  (John  x.  1),  they  usurped  the  supreme  authority 
over  the  Russian  Orthodox  Church,  which  did  not 
belong  to  them. 

On  May  18  of  the  previous  year,  during  our  impris¬ 
onment  in  the  Troitskoe  podvor’e,  the  priests  Vveden¬ 
sky,  Belkov,  and  Kalinovsky  (who  but  a  short  time 
before  had  renounced  the  holy  orders)  visited  us,  and 
under  the  pretext  of  caring  for  the  welfare  of  the 
church,  presented  us  with  a  written  statement,  wherein 
they  complained  that  in  consequence  of  the  existing 
circumstances,  church  business  remained  unattended 
to.  They  begged  us  to  entrust  our  chancery  to  them  in 
order  that  they  might  properly  classify  the  correspond¬ 
ence  received.  Considering  it  a  useful  measure,  we 
yielded  to  their  solicitation  and  inscribed  their  petition 
with  the  following  resolution: 

“The  undersigned  persons  (i.e.  the  priests  who  had 
signed  the  petition)  are  ordered  to  take  over  and 
transmit  to  the  most  holy  Agathangel,  upon  his  arrival 
in  Moscow,  all  the  Synodical  business,  with  the  assist¬ 
ance  of  secretary  Numerov.”  On  the  strength  of  this 
resolution  they  were  ordered  merely  to  take  over  the 
business  and  to  transmit  it  to  Metropolitan  Agathangel 
as  soon  as  he  should  arrive  in  Moscow.  We  gave  them 
no  instructions  as  to  how  to  deal  with  the  entrusted 
affairs  in  case  Metropolitan  Agathangel  should  not 
come  to  Moscow  at  all,  as  we  could  not  at  that  time 
foresee  that  eventuality;  moreover,  there  could  be  no 
approval  in  the  resolution  of  their  replacing,  in  such 
eventuality,  the  metropolitan  and  of  placing  them¬ 
selves  at  the  head  of  the  ecclesiastical  administration, 


The  Second  All-Russian  Local  Sobor  257 

because  the  fullness  of  power  inherent  in  the  episcopal 
office  cannot  be  transferred  to  priests.  Nevertheless, 
they  pronounced  our  resolution  an  act  transmitting  to 
them  the  church  government,  and,  having  come  to  an 
agreement  with  Bishops  Antonin  and  Leonid,  organized 
themselves  into  the  so-called  Supreme  Ecclesiastical 
Administration.  In  order  to  justify  their  self-willed 
behavior,  they  repeatedly  insisted,  both  in  print  and  at 
public  meetings,  that  they  had  entered  upon  the 
administration  of  the  church  by  an  agreement  with  the 
patriarch  ( Pravda ,  May  21,  1922),  and  that  they  were 
members  of  the  Supreme  Ecclesiastical  Administration 
“in  conformity  with  the  resolution  of  the  holy  patriarch 
Tikhon”  (Vvedensky:  Revolution  and  the  Church ,  p. 
28),  and  that  they  “have  received  from  the  hands  of 
the  patriarch  himself  the  Supreme  Ecclesiastical 
Administration”  ( The  Living  Church ,  4-5,  p.  9).  At 
the  meeting  held  on  June  12,  1922,  in  response  to  the 
motion  of  one  of  the  priests  to  abstain  from  any  new 
church  reforms  without  the  patriarch's  approval,  the 
chairman  of  the  meeting,  Bishop  Antonin,  declared: 
“As  Patriarch  Tikhon  has  transmitted  his  authority  to 
the  Supreme  Ecclesiastical  Administration,  without 
reservations,  we  have  no  need  to  run  after  him  to 
receive  from  him  what  he  no  longer  possesses” 
( Izvestiya ,  April  16,  1922;  No.  132). 

Today  we  solemnly  and  within  the  hearing  of  all 
testify  from  the  sacred  cathedra  that  all  these  positive 
statements  as  to  an  agreement  with  us,  and  as  to  the 
transmission  of  the  rights  and  obligations  of  the  patri¬ 
arch  of  the  Russian  church  to  the  Supreme  Ecclesias¬ 
tical  Administration  formed  by  Bishops  Antonin  and 
Leonid,  and  Priests  Vvedensky,  Krasnitsky,  Kalinov¬ 
sky,  and  Belkov,  are  nothing  else  but  lies  and  fraud, 
and  that  the  above-named  persons  have  usurped  the 
ecclesiastical  government  by  seizure  and  arbitrarily, 
without  any  legal  authorization  established  by  the 


258  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

rules  of  our  church.  Upon  all  such  persons  the  holy 
church  pronounces  a  severe  judgment.  According  to 
article  16  of  the  Council  of  Antioch,  a  bishop  who 
digresses  from  the  lawful  order,  and  arbitrarily  invades 
another  bishop’s  diocese,  even  though  requested  by  all 
the  people  to  do  so,  is  degraded  from  his  sacerdotal  rank 
for  the  sin  of  infringing  the  church  laws. 

Those  persons  who  have  organized  the  self-styled 
Supreme  Ecclesiastical  Administration  in  Moscow,  and 
are  on  that  account  guilty  in  the  eyes  of  the  church, 
have  further  aggravated  their  position  by  ordaining 
bishops  to  the  unlawfully  usurped  dioceses,  and  have 
incurred  thereby  censure  according  to  the  35th  rule  of 
the  holy  Apostles,  which  threatens  to  deprive  any  per¬ 
son  of  the  holy  orders  who  ordained,  or  was  himself 
ordained,  in  a  diocese  other  than  his  own.  And 
how  have  they  used  the  unlawfully  usurped  ecclesi¬ 
astical  authority?  They  have  used  it  not  for  the  build¬ 
ing  up  of  the  church,  but  in  sowing  seeds  of  a  destruc¬ 
tive  schism:  in  depriving  orthodox  bishops  of  their 
sees  for  having  remained  faithful  to  their  duty  and  for 
refusing  to  submit  to  them ;  in  persecuting  the  reverend 
priests,  who  in  accordance  with  the  canons  of  the 
church  have  not  submitted  themselves  to  them;  they 
have  founded  everywhere  the  so-called  “Living 
Church,”  which  despises  the  authority  of  the  Ecumeni¬ 
cal  church  and  strives  to  impair  the  necessary  church 
discipline,  in  order  to  secure  victory  to  its  own  party 
and  to  carry  out  by  force  its  objectives  without  heeding 
the  voice  of  the  Sobor,  representing  all  the  believers. 
By  all  these  actions  they  have  separated  themselves 
from  the  body  of  the  Ecumenical  church  and  deprived 
themselves  of  God’s  favor,  which  resides  only  in  the 
church  of  Christ.  Consequently,  all  arrangements 
made  during  our  absence  by  those  ruling  the  church, 
since  they  had  neither  legal  right  nor  canonical  author¬ 
ity,  are  non-valid  and  void,  and  all  actions  and  sacra- 


The  Second  All-Russian  Local  Sobor  259 

merits  performed  by  bishops  and  clergymen  who  have 
forsaken  the  church  are  devoid  of  God’s  grace  and 
power;  the  faithful  taking  part  in  such  prayers  and 
sacraments  shall  receive  no  sanctification  thereby,  and 
are  subject  to  condemnation  for  participating  in  their 
sin. 

Our  heart  has  suffered  acutely  when  the  sad  news 
about  the  church  disorders  which  have  arisen  after  our 
retirement  has  reached  us,  as  we  have  heard  of  the 
violence  exercised  by  the  unauthorized,  self-imposed 
church  government;  of  the  rise  of  party  strife;  of  the 
spirit  of  animosity  and  division  reigning  where  the 
spirit  of  love  and  brotherly  unity  should  have  ruled. 
But  as  long  as  we  had  not  regained  our  liberty,  we 
could  do  nothing  to  assist  in  pacifying  the  church  and 
allaying  the  ruinous  strife  save  to  pray  in  the  secrecy 
of  our  cell.  Now  since  we  have  been  released  from 
prison  and  have  become  fully  acquainted  with  the  state 
of  church  affairs,  we  again  assume  the  primate’s 
authority  which  we  had  temporarily  transferred  to  our 
substitute,  Metropolitan  Agathangel,  who,  however, 
for  reasons  over  which  he  had  no  control,  had  not  been 
able  to  exercise  it.  Resuming  the  exercise  of  our  pas¬ 
toral  duties,  we  fervently  pray  the  Master  of  the 
church,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  to  grant  us  strength  and 
wisdom  to  govern  His  church  and  to  instill  into  it  the 
spirit  of  peace,  love,  and  concord.  At  the  same  time 
we  call  upon  all  bishops,  priests,  and  faithful  sons  of 
the  church,  who  remained  true  to  their  duty,  and  have 
bravely  defended  the  divinely  ordained  order  of  the 
life  of  the  church,  begging  them  to  help  us  in  the  task 
of  pacifying  the  church  by  their  advice,  their  labors, 
and  especially  their  prayers  to  the  Creator  of  all  and 
Sustainer,  God.  We  beseech  those  that,  consciously  or 
unconsciously,  knowingly  or  ignorantly,  have  been 
seduced  by  the  wiles  of  the  present  age,  and  having 
acknowledged  the  unlawful  authority,  have  fallen  away 
from  the  unity  of  the  church  and  the  grace  of  God,  to 


260  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 


confess  their  sin,  to  cleanse  themselves  by  repentance, 
and  to  return  to  the  saving  bosom  of  the  One  Uni¬ 
versal  church. 

May  God’s  blessing  and  the  prayers  of  His  holy 
mother,  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  of  our  fathers,  Peter, 
Alexis,  Jonah,  Philip,  Hermogen,  the  primates  of  Mos¬ 
cow  and  miracle- workers,  and  all  the  saints  of  the  Rus¬ 
sian  land  who  for  ages  have  been  pleasing  to  God,  be 
with  you.  Amen. 

Humble  Tikhon, 

Patriarch  of  Moscow  and  of  All  Russia. 

Moscow,  Donskoy  Monastery, 

July  15,  1923.12 

12  Reprinted  in  the  American  Orthodox  Messenger,  No.  13,  July 
30,  1923.  (In  Russian.) 


CHAPTER  X 


A  HOUSE  DIVIDED  AGAINST  ITSELF 

The  schism  within  the  Russian  church  was  now  an 
accomplished  fact.  That  which  LVov  had  contemptu¬ 
ously  rejected  as  an  improbability  had  become  a  fact. 
There  were  two  well-defined,  mutually  hostile  camps, 
each  striving  for  supremacy,  each  hurling  excommuni¬ 
cations  against  the  other,  each  secure  in  the  sense  of 
the  righteousness  of  its  own  cause.  Masses  of  church 
people,  with  the  majority  of  the  clergy,  rallied  round 
the  patriarch  almost  as  soon  as  he  was  liberated,  and 
were  ready  once  more  to  follow  his  bidding.  This  sur¬ 
prising  turn  of  events,  occasioned  largely  by  a  feeling 
of  sympathy  for  the  suffering  of  the  patriarch,  who 
came  to  be  looked  upon  as  a  martyr  for  the  cause  of 
the  church,  confronted  the  reformist  leaders  with  a 
problem  of  the  utmost  gravity.  Reliable  witnesses 
report  that  their  churches  soon  became  deserted,  and 
that  the  common  masses  flocked  into  the  churches 
which  hoisted  the  patriarchal  flag.  The  Supreme 
Ecclesiastical  Administration  retained  the  outward 
trappings  of  power,  and  continued  to  assert,  now  a  bit 
too  strenuously — as  is  usually  the  case  with  a  man  con¬ 
scious  of  a  flaw  in  his  claim — that  it  was  the  only  legal 
supreme  authority  in  the  church  of  Russia. 

Who,  then,  was  right?  Did  the  patriarch  and  his 
party  possess  superior  claims  to  the  supreme  office,  or 
was  the  reformist  group  in  the  right?  These  are  ques- 

261 


262  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

tions  of  extraordinary  difficulty,  because  so  much  of  the 
contention  of  each  party  is  undeniably  true,  but  neither 
party  is  wholly  right.  That  the  patriarch  was  guilty  of 
an  anti-Soviet  policy  is  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt,  for 
it  is  abundantly  attested  to  by  his  own  official  pro¬ 
nouncements  as  well  as  acts,  and  finally  by  his  own 
confession;  there  is  no  question,  either,  that  the  effect 
upon  the  church  of  this  policy  was  most  disastrous, 
and  that  the  appalling  toll  of  arrests  and  deaths  might 
be  largely  accounted  for  as  its  natural  and  logical 
result.  Moreover,  his  own  legal  position,  honestly  on 
the  part  of  some,  unfairly  on  the  part  of  others,  has 
been  regarded  as  questionable,  for  the  Sobor  of  1917-18 
had  ruled,  by  implication,  that  the  next  meeting  of  the 
Sobor  should  be  called  by  the  patriarch  within  the  next 
three-year  period,1  and  he  as  well  as  the  two  auxiliary 
bodies  associated  with  him  in  governing  the  church 
were  to  give  account  to  this  Sobor,  and  the  two  associ¬ 
ated  groups  were  then,  at  least  partly,  to  be  reap- 
'  pointed.  When  1921  came,  the  patriarch  failed  to  call 
the  Sobor :  it  is  true  that  conditions  were  unfavorable, 
but  the  patriarch  did  not  even  propose  to  call  it,  and 
since  then  showed  no  greater  interest  or  zeal  in  calling 
it,  until  he  was  forced  by  his  own  arrest  to  bestir  him¬ 
self  in  the  matter.  There  were  some  individuals 

1  Decision  of  Dec.  7,  1917,  articles  4  and  8,  Regulations  about  the 
Supreme  and  Eparchial  Administration  of  the  Orthodox  Church , 
Warsaw,  1922,  pp.  7-8.  These  articles  really  refer  to  the  length  of 
the  tenn  for  which  the  two  bodies  associated  with  the  patriarch  in 
administering  the  church  were  eleoted.  Article  4  specifies  that  six 
out  of  the  twelve  of  the  hierarchial  members  of  the  body  are  elected 
for  three  years;  article  8  refers  to  the  membership  of  the  Supreme 
Ecclesiastical  Council,  which  “are  elected  by  the  All-Russian  Sobor 
for  the  inter-Sobor  period  (three  years).”  The  implication  of  the 
latter  provision,  that  the  Sobors  are  to  be  called  every  three  years, 
is  undoubtedly  and  clearly  to  that  effect;  but  it  is  not  specifically 
stated. 


A  House  Divided  Against  Itself  263 

in  the  reformist  group  who  apparently  honestly 
believed  that  the  patriarch’s  legal  tenure  of  office  since 
1921  was  seriously  impaired,  and  who  had  precipitously 
jumped  to  the  conclusion  that  he  no  longer  possessed 
the  necessary  lawful  authority  to  govern  the  church. 

It  may  be  that  others  felt  in  their  heart  of  hearts  that 
this  was  but  a  flimsy  and  pettifogging  pretense,  and  yet 
urged  it  to  deceive  others  into  doubting  the  patriarch’s 
right  to  the  supreme  power.  However  that  may  have 
been,  the  result  was  the  same :  these  individuals  refused 
to  recognize  the  patriarch’s  title  to  his  office.  But,  of 
course,  Ithe  strongest  and  most  obvious  of  reasons 
against  the  continuation  of  the  policy  hitherto  pursued 
by  the  patriarch  was  the  ruinous,  desperate  condition 
to  which  the  church  had  been  brought  under  the  patri¬ 
arch’s  direction:  a  practical  state  of  civil  war  existed 
between  the  state  and  the  church,  in  whichjbhe  latter 
sustained  crushing .  defeata;_±he_hierarchs  and  priests 
were  arrested  and  thrown  into  prison,  suffered  in  exile, 
and  were  being  put  to  death  in  appalling  numbers.  The! 
authorities  were  ruthless  in  the  execution  of  the  laws, 
and  unless  the  church  abandoned  its  attitude  of  stub¬ 
born,  obstinate  opposition,  it  seemed  as  if  utter  anni¬ 
hilation  were  staring  it  in  the  face.  So  it  at  least  , 
appeared  to  those  who  disagreed  with  the  patriarch’s 
policy.  Could  he  and  his  associates,  confirmed  and 
convinced  opponents  of  the  Soviet  regime  as  they  were, 
be  expected  to  effect  any  radical  change  in  their  policy?  j 
Hardly.  There  was  nothing  left  but  to  adopt  the  revo¬ 
lutionary  method,  and  in  the  interests  of  preservation 
of  the  church — and  self-preservation  is  the  first  law  of 
nature — to  overthrow  the  existing  church  government 
and  set  up  one  better  fitted  to  cope  with  the  prevailing 
situation.  This,  indeed,  was  the  surest  ground  on  which 


264  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

the  reformist  movement  could  seek  justification,  and 
it  is  difficult,  in  face  of  the  undoubtedly  perilous,  in 
fact  almost  hopeless,  situation  into  which  the  patri¬ 
arch’s  policy  had  plunged  the  church,  not  to  concede 
its  right  to  revolt.  The  methods  used  to  overthrow 
the  patriarchal  power  and  to  seize  supreme  direction  of 
affairs  were  frankly  uncanonical,  revolutionary:  to 
claim  patriarchal  sanction  for  the  usurpation  of  power 
on  the  part  of  the  Supreme  Ecclesiastical  Administra¬ 
tion  is  to  resort  to  trickery  and  palpable  falsehood,  and 
to  jeopardize  the  acknowledgment  of  its  real  rights  on 
a  purely  revolutionary  basis.  The  patriarch,  of  course, 
never  dreamed  of  making  the  group  which  came  to 
visit  him  on  May  18  his  successors  in  the  supreme 
office,  and  to  claim  it  could  hardly  be  understood  other¬ 
wise  than  as  a  conscious  deceit  and  a  lie.  It  is  incon¬ 
ceivable  that  those  leaders  who  made  the  claim  could 
honestly  have  believed  it.  But  mere  affirmation 
of  the  uncanonicity  of  the  movement  cannot  in  the 
nature  of  the  case  be  regarded  as  conclusively  con¬ 
demnatory,  for  there  were  obviously  much  graver  issues 
involved  than  a  mere  adherence  to  ancient  canons:  the 
very  existence  of  the  church  was  at  stake.  To  save  it, 
the  movement  affirmed  its  moral  right  to  commit  an 
uncanonical  action  as  long  as  the  canonical  authorities 
were  hurrying  the  church  to  destruction. 

The  arguments  of  the  patriarchal  party  that  the 
Sobor  of  1923  was  uncanonical  because  it  was  not  called 
and  presided  over  by  the  patriarch  were  answered  by  a 
similar  insistence  on  the  legal  and  rightful  transmission 
of  the  supreme  authority  by  the  patriarch  to  the 
Ecclesiastical  Administration,  which  as  an  heir  to  the 
patriarchal  prerogatives  possessed  the  right  to  call  and 


A  House  Divided  Against  Itself  265 

preside  at  the  Sobor.  The  further  objection  that  the 
patriarch  was  not  judged  by  his  equals — the  Eastern 
patriarchs — but  by  those  who  really  were  his  subordi¬ 
nates,  the  Russian  hierarchs  and  the  rank  and  file  of 
the  clergy  and  the  lay  delegation  of  the  Sobor,  was 
answered  by  pointing  to  the  provisions  of  the  first 
Sobor,  which,  in  defining  “the  rights  and  duties  of  the 
patriarch,”  had  decreed  in  article  10:  “In  case  the 
patriarch  should  infringe  the  rights  or  duties  of  his 
office  ...  he  shall  be  tried  by  an  All-Russian  Sobor  of 
bishops,  to  which,  as  far  as  possible,  the  other  patriarchs 
and  representatives  of  autocephalous  churches  shall 
be  invited ;  in  such  a  case  the  indictment  as  well  as  the 
condemnatory  verdict  requires  not  less  than  two-thirds 
of  effective  votes.”  Thus  Tikhon’s  sentence  was 
affirmed  to  have  been  passed  in  a  canonical  manner. 
Moreover,  if  he  felt  that  the  decision  of  the  Sobor  was 
unjust,  he  could  have  appealed  his  case  to  the  next 
Sobor,  but  it  was  uncanonical  for  him  to  resume  his 
office  in  spite  of  the  decision  of  the  Sobor.  This  state¬ 
ment  of  the  case  gains  its  point  by  a  judicious  sup¬ 
pression  of  certain  details  of  the  legislation  in  question : 
article  8  of  the  above-mentioned  enactment  specifies 
that 

should  the  patriarch  fail  in  his  duties,  then  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  the  nature  of  the  failure,  the  three  eldest 
members  of  the  Holy  Synod  or  members  of  the  Supreme 
Ecclesiastical  Council  of  archiepiscopal  rank  shall  make 
a  brotherly  representation  to  the  patriarch;  in  case 
this  should  have  no  result,  they  shall  make  a  second 
representation,  and  in  case  this  also  is  fruitless, 
they  shall  adopt  further  measures  in  accordance  with 
article  10. 


266  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

10.  In  case  the  patriarch  should  infringe  the  rights 
or  duties  of  his  office,  the  question  whether  his  acts 
involve  culpability  shall  be  decided  by  a  joint  meeting 
of  the  Holy  Synod  and  the  Supreme  Ecclesiastical 
Council.  His  indictment  and  trial  devolve  upon  the 
All-Russian  Sobor  of  bishops,  to  which,  as  far  as  pos¬ 
sible,  the  other  patriarchs  and  representatives  of  auto¬ 
cephalous  churches  shall  be  invited ;  in  such  a  case,  the 
indictment,  as  well  as  the  condemnatory  verdict, 
requires  no  less  than  two  thirds  of  effective  votes.* 

From  this  complete  statement  it  appears  that  the  patri¬ 
arch’s  trial  and  condemnation  as  actually  effected  by 
the  Sobor  of  1923  did  not  conform  in  many  particulars 
to  the  prescribed  procedure. 

As  for  the  charges  on  the  basis  of  which  Tikhon  was 
degraded,  these,  too,  were  affirmed  to  have  been  of 
canonical  validity:  in  accordance  with  rule  81  of  the 
Apostolic  Canons ,  “it  is  not  proper  for  a  bishop  or 
priest  to  meddle  with  the  national  government,  for 
otherwise  he  is  not  to  be  permitted  in  the  ecclesiastical 
office.  He  must  either  consent  not  to  do  so,  or  other¬ 
wise  he  must  be  degraded.”  Since  his  policy  involved 
Tikhon  in  constant  political  activity,  which  resulted  in 
the  death  of  many  members  of  the  church,  the  patriarch 
was  sentenced  to  the  canonical  punishment  prescribed 
in  the  Apostolic  Canons .  This  is  another  excellent 
illustration  of  the  loose  use  of  and  juggling  with 
canonical  provisions,  whereby  either  party  may 
“prove”  whatever  it  pleases:  the  canon  cited  really 
reads  as  follows: 

We  have  said  that  a  bishop  or  presbyter  must  not 
give  himself  to  the  management  of  public  affairs,  but 
devote  himself  to  ecclesiastical  business.  Let  him  then 

2  Regulations,  p.  5. 


267 


A  House  Divided  Against  Itself 

be  persuaded  to  do  so,  or  let  him  be  deposed,  for  no 
man  can  serve  two  masters,  according  to  the  Lord’s 
declaration.8 

This  rendering  makes  it  perfectly  clear  that  what  was 
prohibited  here  was  the  practice  so  common  in  the 
Byzantine  Empire  of  using  a  bishop  as  an  official  of  the 
government,  and  has  no  bearing  upon  Tikhon’s  case. 
But  in  the  clash  of  rival  claims  between  the  patriarchal 
and  the  synodical  party,  the  contestants  do  not  seem 
to  have  been  loath  to  descend  to  such  perversion  of 
the  text  of  the  canons,  as  long  as  they  hoped  to  score 
a  point  thereby. 

The  patriarchal  party,  of  course,  had  a  comparatively 
easy  task  of  stating  or  proving  its  case.  They  claimed 
that  the  patriarch  was  not  obliged  to  convene  the  Sobor 
within  the  period  of  three  years,  for  the  provisions  of 
the  Sobor  of  1917-18  merely  implied  its  convocation 
withi  i  that  period,  but  did  not  specifically  state  it  as  a 
positi  e  requirement.  The  patriarch  did  not  surrender 
his  authority  to  the  reformist  group,  for  he  could  not 
have  done  so  even  if  he  had  wanted  to;  any  definite 
transmission  of  authority  could  be  effected  only  by  the 
Sobor.  The  party  rightfully  pressed  the  point  that  the 
action  of  the  reformist  group  was  a  plain  usurpation, 
later  aggravated  by  mendacity  and  deceit.  If 
Agathangel  could  not  come  to  assume  the  office,  by 
virtue  of  the  authority  committed  to  him  he  ruled  that 
each  bishop  should  administer  his  diocese  independ¬ 
ently  in  accordance  with  the  canons  until  the  Sobor 
could  be  called  to  provide  lawful  central  authority.  The 
Sobor  of  1923  was  uncanonical,  and  its  actions  were 

3  The  Seven  Ecumenical  Councils,  edited  by  H.  R.  Percival,  in 
the  Nicene  and  Post-Nicene  Fathers,  Vol.  XIV ;  The  Apostolic 
Canons,  LXXXI,  New  York,  1900,  p.  599. 


268  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

null  and  void,  because  it  was  not  called  and  presided 
over  by  the  patriarch  as  the  provisions  adopted  by  the 
Sobor  of  1917-18  specified.  It  was  a  partisan  group, 
nonrepresentative  of  the  entire  church,  and  certainly 
not  representative  of  the  patriarchal  party,  for  all  who 
had  been  sentenced  either  by  civil  or  ecclesiastical 
courts  were  disqualified  as  candidates  for  election  as 
delegates  to  the  Sobor,  and  that  provision  excluded  a 
great  majority  of  the  leading  representatives  of  the 
patriarchal  party,  most  of  whom  were  thus  sentenced, 
and  many  of  whom  were  in  prison  at  the  time  when  the 
Sobor  was  in  session.  The  trial  of  the  patriarch  was 
a  farce,  for  he  neither  was  apprised  of  the  charges 
against  him,  nor  was  he  present  to  offer  a  defense; 
moreover,  his  trial  was  not  conducted  in  accordance 
with  the  provisions  of  the  Sobor  of  1917-18,  nor  was 
his  case  represented  by  a  counsel  for  defense.  The 
same  group  which  made  the  charges  likewise  passed 
the  verdict.  Other  actions  passed  by  the  Sobor  were 
not  within  the  competence  of  a  local,  i.e.  a  national 
body,  such  as  the  Sobor  was:  thus,  for  instance,  it  was 
claimed  that  only  an  ecumenical  council  could  change 
the  requirement  that  the  bishop  be  unmarried,  or  per¬ 
mit  a  priest  to  marry  a  second  time.  These  actions, 
therefore,  had  no  validity  in  the  canonical  law  of  the 
Eastern  Orthodox  churches,  which  no  single  national 
church  was  competent  to  change.  Until  a  lawfully 
called  Sobor,  representative  of  the  entire  church,  shall 
settle  the  problems  which  have  arisen  in  the  Russian 
church,  the  patriarch  remains  the  only  lawful  head  of 
the  church  administration. 

Such  were  the  rival  claims:  since  there  was  a  con¬ 
siderable  measure  of  truth  in  both  of  them,  no  wonder 
that  honest  men,  bent  upon  doing  right,  arrived  at  dif- 


269 


A  House  Divided  Against  Itself 

ferent  interpretations  and  conclusions  about  them,  and 
consequently  could  be  found  on  both  sides.  But  let 
it  not  be  forgotten  that  the  actual  reasons  motivating 
the  actions  went  deeper:  they  were  psychological,  one 
party  being  conservative  and  tenacious  of  the  ancient 
doctrines  ancTTisages,  the  other  being  progressive- 
minded,  desiring  change  in  polity  as  well  as  in 
doctrine  of  the  church:  they  were  political,  the  patri¬ 
archal  party  being  still  largely  opposed  to  the  new 
regime,  and  even  though  not  solidly  monarchical,  yet 
desiring  an  overthrow  of  the  existing  government  in 
favor  of  one  nearer  to  the  Right,  while  the  progres- 
sivist  groups  were  all  supporters  of  the  new  govern¬ 
ment*  and  some  among  them  even  enthusiastic  parti¬ 
sans  of  its  social  program,  even  though  all  of  them 
made  an  exception  of  the  anti-religious  animus  with 
which  the  governmental  personnel  was  imbued.  The  « 
underlying  motives  undoubtedly  also  lay  in  the  region  1 
of  personal  ambitions  of  some  of  the  leaders,  who/ 
desired  power  more  than  they  desired  the  peace  of  the f 
church.^ 

It  may  be  interesting  to  cast  a  hasty  glance  at  the 
leading  personalities  of  the  revolting  movement,  to 
get  an  idea  of  the  motives  dominating  them.  Kras- 
nitsky,  as  later  events  proved,  was  not  a  man  disinter¬ 
estedly  given  to  the  promotion  of  a  great  idea  which 
captivated  him,  and  may  be  presumed  to  have  been 
actuated  by  personal  ambition;  Vvedensky  was  an 
impulsive  idealist,  with  tremendous  oratorical  powers 
which  captivated  his  audiences;  Bishop  Antonin  was 
retired  shortly  after  the  events  of  the  First  Revolution 
in  1905  for  his  known  liberal  tendencies  and  outspoken 
advocacy  of  them,  and  chafed  under  this  restraint.  He 
had  petitioned  Patriarch  Tikhon  to  be  returned  to 


270  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

active  service,  but  his  request  was  denied;  it  is  only 
natural  to  suppose  that  he  joined  the  revolting  move¬ 
ment  because  it  gave  him  a  chance  to  reassert  himself, 
although  this  was  not  his  only  reason.  He,  of  course, 
was  thoroughly  in  sympathy  with  the  objectives  of  the 
anti-patriarchal  program,  and  saw  in  it  his  chance  to 
make  his  opinions  count. 

All  of  these  factors  contributed  mightily  to  produce 
the  situation  which  inevitably  hurled  the  church  into 
two  hostile  camps.  And  who  can  say  that  one  party 
was  wholly  right  and  the  other  wholly  wrong? 

For  the  time  being,  however,  the  crowd  psychology, 
manifesting  itself  in  a  wave  of  sympathy  for  the  patri¬ 
arch,  who  was  popularly  acclaimed  as  a  confessor  suf¬ 
fering  for  his  Christian  faith,  carried  him  to  a  trium¬ 
phant  reassertion  of  his  former  influence  and  power, 
even  though  not  to  the  full  extent  of  his  former  author¬ 
ity.  He  had  the  masses  with  him;  the  Supreme 
Ecclesiastical  Administration  might  have  lodged  its 
adherents  in  the  important  cathedras  of  the  church,  but 
they  wielded  authority  without  possessing  power.  They 
reigned,  but  did  not  govern.  Their  churches,  according 
to  reliable  witnesses,  were  sadly  deserted,  while  the 
patriarchal  churches  were  filled  to  overflowing.  The 
Supreme  Ecclesiastical  Administration  found  itself  in 
an  increasingly  difficult  position:  the  three  groups 
which  represented  the  bulk  of  the  reformist  movement 
were  prone  to  all  kinds  of  excesses,  and  were  not  har¬ 
monious  in  their  relations  with  each  other.  But  their 
chief  fault  lay  in  their  inability  to  recognize  the  para¬ 
mount  necessity  of  a  unified  program,  and  their  ideolog¬ 
ical  diversity  tended  to  split  up  their  forces,  so  that 
their  impact  was  not  even  as  effective  as  it  otherwise 
could  have  been.  Moreover,  the  leading  personalities 


A  House  Divided  Against  Itself  271 

of  the  groups  were  too  strongly  inclined  to  the  besetting 
sin  of  all  reformers:  the  assertion  of  their  individual 
views  to  the  extent  of  attempting  to  impose  their  will 
upon  others,  without  proper  regard  for  the  convictions 
of  others.  In  the  case  under  consideration,  this  pro¬ 
duced  personal  friction,  which  under  the  circumstances 
was  very  unfortunate.  Men  like  Krasnitsky  and 
Metropolitan  Antonin  carried  their  personal  differ¬ 
ences  to  a  point  where  the  movement  they  represented 
was  brought  into  disrepute. 

The  increasing  pressure  of  these  circumstances  pro¬ 
duced  a  crisis  so  acute  that  finally  it  forced  upon  the 
reformist  forces  the  conviction  that  unification  was 
the  only  possible  method  of  counteracting  the  disrup¬ 
tive  tendencies  inherent  in  the  situation.  Hence,  in 
August,  1923,  at  a  conference  of  bishops  and  other 
leaders  of  the  three  groups,  it  was  decided  to  abandon 
the  former  group  form  of  organization,  where  the 
diversity  of  group  platforms  tended  to  produce  strife 
and  rivalry,  and  to  organize  one  single  party,  which 
would  rest  on  the  principles  of  democratic,  synodical 
government  of  the  church,  as  opposed  to  what  was 
regarded  as  the  autocratic,  patriarchal  form  of  hier¬ 
archical  control.  The  party  acknowledged  the  Sobor 
as  the  supreme  legislative  organ  of  the  church  and,  in 
contradiction  to  the  patriarchal  party,  professed 
allegiance  to  both  Sobors,  while  the  latter  rejected  the 
second  of  these.  The  new  organization  was  joined  by 
the  entire  group  of  the  Ancient  Apostolic  Church, 
headed  by  their  leader,  Archbishop  Vvedensky,  and 
the  bulk  of  the  other  two  groups,  the  Living  Church 
and  the  Churchly  Regeneration,  although  the  two 
leaders,  Krasnitsky  and  Metropolitan  Antonin,  together 
with  a  rather  insignificant  fraction  of  their  former  fol- 


272  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

lowing,  remained  outside  the  new,  centralized  reformist 
party,  and  continued  the  disruptive  policies  of  their 
platforms  with  even  greater  vehemence  than  before. 
Thereupon  the  title  of  the  governing  body  was  changed 
from  Supreme  Ecclesiastical  Administration  to  Holy 
Synod  of  the  Orthodox  Russian  Church,  and  in  place  of 
Metropolitan  Antonin,  the  headship  of  the  new 
supreme  government  passed  to  Archbishop  Evdokim 
of  Nizhni  Novgorod.  This  important  radical  reorgani- 
,  zation  of  the  entire  reformist  movement  was  then 
approved  by  the  conference  held  in  Moscow  from  June 
10  to  18,  1924,  for  the  purpose  of  preparing  the  agenda 
of  the  next,  the  third  Sobor,  which  was  to  be  convened 
j  in  1925;  this  conference  was  attended  by  466  delegates, 
among  whom  were  counted  83  bishops.4 

The  reorganization  of  the  reformist  groups  into  the 
synodical  party,  as  the  new  organization  can  best  be 
termed  (although  it  is  also  often  spoken  of  as  the  new- 
church  party)  is  but  imperfectly  understood  outside  of 
*  Russia.  One  constantly  hears  references  to  the  Living 
Church  as  if  that  organization  still  represented  the 
chief  group  opposing  the  patriarchate,  or  comprised  all 
the  anti-patriarchal  forces.  This  is  a  total  misappre¬ 
hension  of  the  situation,  largely  due  to  imperfect 
acquaintance  with  the  real  state  of  affairs  in  Russia. 
The  Living  Church  group  henceforth  ceased  to  play 
any  important  role  whatsoever,  and  continued  to 
dwindle,  until  at  the  present  time  it  forms  quite  an 
insignificant  as  well  as  infinitesimal  party,  still  headed 
by  Krasnitsky.  For  all  practical  purposes,  the  organi¬ 
zation  is  quite  negligible.  Metropolitan  Antonin’s 
group,  as  well  as  he,  also  lost  almost  all  its  practical 
significance,  and  if  one  might  be  permitted  to  anticipate 

4  Cf.  The  Messenger  of  the  Holy  Synod,  No.  3,  1925,  p.  9. 


A  House  Divided  Against  Itself  273 

the  story  for  the  sake  of  forming  a  more  complete 
understanding  of  the  present  situation,  it  may  be 
remarked  that  in  August,  1926,  he  and  the  die-hards  of 
his  group  were  received,  at  his  request,  into  the  mem¬ 
bership  of  the  synodical  party.  It  would  also  be  unfair 
to  charge  the  new  centralized  organization,  the  synod¬ 
ical  party,  with  the  responsibility  for  the  excesses,  or 
questionable  actions,  committed  by  the  former  groups. 
It  is  true  that  the  majority  of  the  original  membership 
of  the  new  party  came  from  the  three  main  reformist 
groups;  but  the  basis  of  the  new  organization  was  dif¬ 
ferent  in  its  emphasis.  I  tjaicL  stress  upon  the  synod¬ 
ical,  or  representative,  principle  in  church  government, 
and  especially  upon  the  provision  of  the  first  Sobor 
which  pronounced  the  supreme  authority  in  the  church 
of  Russia  to  be  vested  in  itself,  as  well  as  in  future 
Sobors.  The  new  party  professed  obedience  to  the  deci¬ 
sions  of  both  Sobors:  the  first  reestablished  the  patri¬ 
archate;  but  the  second  Sobor  abolished  it.  Since  the 
Sobor  is  supreme,  what  right  did  the  patriarch  have  not 
to  submit  to  it?  It  was  the  patriarch  who  rejected  the 
principle  of  conciliar  supremacy,  and  therefore  respon¬ 
sibility  for  the  schism  rested  with  him.  The  synodical 
party  freely  acknowledged  that  the  reformist  groups 
were  guilty  of  many  excesses  in  the  seizure  and  conduct 
of  church  affairs,  but  it  claimed  that  such  actions  in  no 
way  impaired  the  canonicity  of  the  Sobor  of  1923,  and 
that,  in  accordance  with  the  ruling  of  the  first  Sobor, 
the  conciliar  authority,  not  the  patriarchal,  was 
supreme  in  the  church  of  Russia;  hence  all  members 
of  the  Russian  church,  irrespective  of  whether  or  not 
they  agreed  with  the  programs  of  the  reformist  groups, 
were  duty-bound  to  obey  the  decisions  of  the  Sobors 
as  representing  the  supreme  legislative  authority. 


274  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

The  position  of  the  Holy  Synod  was  very  consider¬ 
ably  strengthened  when,  in  response  to  its  appeal  to 
the  patriarch  of  Constantinople  for  a  judgment  regard¬ 
ing  the  legality  of  the  rival  claims  of  the  two  parties  to 
the  supreme  authority  within  the  church  of  Russia, 
and  with  the  solemn  promise  to  submit  unconditionally 
to  his  judgment,  that  dignitary  pronounced  in  its  favor. 
It  must  be  remembered  that  “the  ecumenical  patri¬ 
arch/'  as  the  head  of  the  Constantinopolitan  patri¬ 
archate  is  called,  in  spite  of  the  diminutive  authority 
which  he  actually  wields,  is  nevertheless  held  in  the 
highest  esteem  in  the  Eastern  communions  because  his 
see  possesses  the  primacy  of  honor  among  them,  and 
exercises  the  right  of  appellate  jurisdiction,  thus  being 
able  to  act  as  an  umpire  in  the  disputes  arising  in  the 
autocephalous  churches.  His  judgment,  therefore,  is 
really  of  very  great  importance. 

The  history  of  his  decision  of  the  Russian  rival 
claims,  however,  is  typical  of  the  Eastern  way  of  doing 
things.  One  ecumenical  patriarch  first  decided  in  favor 
of  Patriarch  Tikhon,  but  later  this  decision  was 
reversed  by  his  successor,  in  favor  of  the  synodical 
party,  thus  enabling  both  rivals  to  appeal  to  the  deci¬ 
sion  of  the  ecumenical  patriarch  as  favoring  their  con¬ 
tention.  This  may  be  Solomonic  or  may  not,  but  it 
certainly  is  not  conducive  to  settling  the  controversy 
under  consideration.  In  a  statement  issued  on  July  4, 
1923,  by  Patriarch  Meletius  IV  of  Constantinople 
addressed  to  Metropolitan  Antony  (Khrapovitsky), 
the  former  hierarch  of  Kiev  and  Galicia  was  informed 
of  the  stand  which  the  All-Orthodox  Congress  had 
taken  toward  the  deposition  of  Tikhon.  The  Con¬ 
gress  expressed  its  sorrow  at  the  action  taken  by  the 
Russian  Local  Sobor  in  deposing  and  degrading  Patri- 


A  House  Divided  Against  Itself  275 

arch  Tikhon  while  “the  confessor-patriarch”  was  in 
prison,  but  likewise  adopted  a  resolution  “to  ask  the 
ecumenical  patriarch,  along  with  other  Orthodox 
churches,  to  investigate  the  question  of  the  status  of 
the  Russian  church,  in  order  to  afford  exact  direction 
to  the  confused  religious  conscience  of  the  devout  Rus¬ 
sian  nation,  which  is  suffering  from  a  terrible  confusion 
in  matters  of  faith.”  5  Similar  pronouncements,  some 
of  them  very  strongly  condemning  the  deposition  of 
Patriarch  Tikhon  by  the  second  Sobor,  were  issued  by 
the  patriarch  of  Antioch,  Gregory,0  and  Demetrius, 
patriarch  of  Serbia,6 7  and  leave  no  doubt  about  the  posi¬ 
tion  of  these  important  dignitaries  of  the  Eastern 
Orthodox  churches. 

Nevertheless,  the  position  of  the  Constantinopolitan 
patriarch  was  reversed  by  the  successor  of  Meletius, 
Gregory  VII,  and  his  example  was  then  followed  by 
other  patriarchs.  When  Gregory  ascended  the  patri¬ 
archal  throne,  and  the  Russian  Holy  Synod  appealed 
to  him  for  a  decision  of  the  mooted  question  which 
caused  schism  in  the  Russian  church,  he  appointed  a 
commission  to  investigate  the  real  state  of  affairs  in 
Russia.  In  his  suggestions  made  to  the  Constantino¬ 
politan  Holy  Synod,  he  advocated  that  the  contem¬ 
plated  commission  be  given  instructions  to  proceed  in 
compliance  with  the  following  principles:  that  the  com¬ 
mission  should  acknowledge  the  party  which  is  loyal 
to  the  government,  and  that  the  group  or  individuals 
who  meddle  in  politics  and  oppose  the  de  jacto  govern¬ 
ment  should  not  be  countenanced  by  them.  In  the 

6  The  American  Orthodox  Messenger,  No.  8-9,  Aug.-Sept.,  1926, 
p.  99.  (In  Russian.) 

0  Dated  Oct.  19-Nov.  1,  1923;  ibid.,  pp.  97-98. 

7  Dated  Sept.  27-Oct.  9,  1924;  ibid.,  p.  97. 


276  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

third  place,  Patriarch  Gregory  expressed  his  judgment 
regarding  Tikhon’s  case  as  follows: 

In  view  of  the  difference  of  opinion  which  has  arisen 
within  the  church,  we  regard  it  necessary  that  the  most 
holy  patriarch  Tikhon,  for  the  sake  of  uniting  the 
divided  church,  and  for  the  sake  of  his  flock,  should 
sacrifice  himself,  and  without  delay  surrender  his 
administration  of  the  church,  as  is  meet  for  a  true  and 
loving  shepherd  who  is  anxious  for  the  salvation  of 
his  flock;  and,  at  the  same  time,  that  the  patriarchate 
be  abolished,  even  though  temporarily,  as  having  been 
born  under  abnormal  circumstances  at  the  beginning 
of  the  civil  war,  and  as  representing  a  serious  hindrance 
to  the  restitution  of  peace  and  unity.  In  place  of  the 
abolished  patriarchate,  the  Supreme  Ecclesiastical 
Administration  shall  call  a  free  and  canonically 
elected  Sobor,  which  shall  work  out  the  details  of  the 
administration  of  the  church  in  U.  S.  S.  R.8 

The  Constantinopolitan  Holy  Synod  actually 
acceded  to  these  recommendations  of  the  patriarch, 
and  adopted  a  set  of  resolutions  very  closely  following 
the  patriarchal  dictum.  The  second  and  third  articles 
of  these  instructions  read  as  follows: 

That  the  commission  convey  in  an  appropriate  man¬ 
ner  the  view  of  the  most  Holy  Synod  relative  to  the 
necessity  of  removal  of  the  most  holy  patriarch  Tik¬ 
hon,  and  the  abolition,  even  if  only  temporary,  of  the 
patriarchate  in  the  U.  S.  S.  R.;  the  commission  shall 
organize  its  work  accordingly. 

That  it  make  known  the  view  of  the  ecumenical 
patriarch  that  the  new  regulation  regarding  the 
supreme  ecclesiastical  administration  must  be  based 

8  From  the  Protocol  of  the  Session  of  the  Constantinopolitan 
Holy  Synod,  May  6,  1924 ;  copied  from  the  Russian  Holy  Synod’s 
Archives;  there  were  three  meetings  previous  to  this,  which  like¬ 
wise  dealt  with  the  question. 


A  House  Divided  Against  Itself  277 

upon  foundations  of  purely  conciliar  ecclesiastical 
principles,  and  must  have  the  form  of  a  freely  and 
canonically  elected  Conciliar  Synod.0 

This  action,  which  was  passed  in  May,  1924,  was  a 
signal  victory  for  the  synodalist  group.  It  did  not,  to 
be  sure,  represent  an  out-and-out  recognition  of  its 
claim;  but  the  unequivocal  judgment  regarding  the 
necessity  of  the  patriarch’s  retirement  told  heavily  in 
its  favor. 

Tikhon,  on  the  other  hand,  in  spite  of  his  promise 
to  desist  from  all  anti-governmental  activity  upon 
his  release,  had  very  unwisely,  if  he  meant  the 
promise  seriously,  surrounded  himself  anew  with  per¬ 
sons  known  to  be  opposed  to  the  government  and  of 
definitely  reactionary  tendencies;  these  advisers,  then, 
as  might  be  expected,  exerted  a  great  influence  upon 
him,  to  the  detriment  of  the  interests  of  the  church. 
Under  such  circumstances,  and  with  the  firm  convic¬ 
tion  of  the  righteousness  of  his  cause,  it  was  quite  nat¬ 
ural  that  Patriarch  Tikhon  should  indignantly  refuse 
to  follow  the  advice  of  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople 
regarding  his  retirement  from  office,  and  branded  the 
ecumenical  patriarch’s  action  in  sending  an  investigat¬ 
ing  commission,  after  a  few  unsuccessful  efforts  to  per¬ 
suade  Gregory  VII  to  stay  the  mission,  as  an  act  of 
unwarranted  interference  in  the  inner  affairs  of  an 
autocephalous  national  church. 

But  let  us  permit  the  patriarch  to  speak  for  himself, 
and  to  justify,  if  he  can,  his  rejection  of  the  mediation 
of  the  ecumenical  patriarch.  In  answering  Gregory 
VII,  Tikhon  wrote: 

Having  perused  the  above-mentioned  protocols,  we 
9  Ibid. 


278  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

were  not  a  little  saddened,  as  well  as  amazed,  that  the 
representative  of  the  ecumenical  patriarchate,  the  head 
of  the  Constantinopolitan  church,  without  any  pre¬ 
paratory  correspondence  with  us  as  the  lawful  repre¬ 
sentative  and  head  of  the  whole  Russian  church,  should 
intrude  himself  into  the  life  and  affairs  of  the  auto¬ 
cephalous  Russian  church.  The  holy  Sobors  (cf.  the 
2d  and  3d  rules  of  the  II'  Ecumenical  Council,  and 
others)  ever  acknowledged  in  the  past  as  well  as  now 
that  the  Constantinopolitan  bishop  possesses  a  pre¬ 
eminence  of  honor  above  other  autocephalous  churches, 
but  not  of  authority.  We  also  recall  that  rule  which 
specifies  that  “when  not  invited,  bishops  must  not  go 
outside  the  limits  of  their  territory  to  consecrate 
another,  or  for  any  other  ecclesiastical  function.”  Hence 
any  attempt  of  any  commission  whatsoever  without 
reference  to  me,  as  the  sole  legal  and  orthodox  pri¬ 
mate  of  the  Russian  Orthodox  Church,  is  illegal  with¬ 
out  my  authorization,  and  will  not  be  received  by  the 
Orthodox  Russian  people,  and  will  result  not  in  pacifi¬ 
cation,  but  in  a  still  greater  disturbance  and  schism  in 
the  life  of  the  already  heavily  afflicted  Russian  Ortho¬ 
dox  Church.  In  the  end,  it  will  be  beneficial  only  to 
our  schismatical  new-churchmen,  whose  leaders  now 
at  the  head  of  the  so-called  (self-styled)  Holy  Synod, 
as  the  former  archbishop  of  Nizhni  Novgorod,  Evdo¬ 
kim,  and  others,  are  deprived  by  me  of  their  priestly 
office,  and  “till  further  disposition,”  on  account  of  the 
disturbance,  schism,  and  illegal  seizure  of  ecclesiastical 
government  which  they  effected,  are  pronounced  to  be 
outside  the  fellowship  of  the  Orthodox  church.10 

This  is  an  admirable  statement  of  the  point  of  view 
of  the  patriarchal  party,  and  it  is  difficult  to  find  any 
fundamental  fault  with  it. 

10  The  Ecclesiastical  Journal  (of  Karlovtsi),  Serbia,  Nos.  7  and  8, 
1925.  (In  Russian.) 


A  House  Divided  Against  Itself  279 

Needless  to  say,  the  Constantinopolitan  commission 
as  well  as  the  patriarch  pronounced  in  favor  of  the 
synodical  party;  furthermore,  the  patriarch  sent  to  its 
headquarters  his  accredited  representative.  This  action, 
of  course,  carried  with  it  the  recognition  of  the  canon- 
icity  of  the  Sobor  of  1923,  .and  as  such  was  a  great 
moral  victory  for  the  synodical  party,  for  it  most  effec¬ 
tually  disposed  of  the  disputed  question,  at  least  tem¬ 
porarily.  The  action  of  the  universal  patriarch  was 
followed,  in  the  course  of  time,  by  his  own  successors, 
Constantine  VI  and  Basil  III,  as  well  as  by  a  similar 
recognition  and  sending  of  an  accredited  representative 
on  the  part  of  the  patriarchate  of  Alexandria.  The 
action  of  the  patriarch  of  Jerusalem  also  followed  the 
vacillating  policy  of  Constantinople,  for  at  first  patri¬ 
arch  Damian  pronounced  in  favor  of  Tikhon,  “who 
was  acknowledged  by  me,  together  with  all  Eastern 
Orthodox  patriarchs,  the  lawful  canonical  head  of  the 
Orthodox  Russian  Church,  whom  we  acknowledged  to 
the  end  of  his  earthly  life.”  11  This  document  was 
issued  on  August  25,  1925;  but  on  July  9,  1926,  this 
same  Patriarch  Damian,  in  reply  to  an  appeal  of  the 
Russian  Holy  Synod,  issued  a  pronouncement 
“acknowledging  as  entirely  rightful  the  course  chosen 
by  the  Holy  Synod  for  securing  peaceful  life  for  the 
Orthodox  church  within  the  boundaries  of  Soviet  Rus¬ 
sia.”  In  consequence  of  this  acknowledgment,  the 
patriarch  of  Jerusalem  renewed  his  brotherly  inter¬ 
course  with  the  synodical  party  of  the  Russian  church 
by  sending  his  representative  to  the  headquarters  of 
the  Holy  Synod.”  12 

11  The  American  Orthodox  Messenger,  No.  8-9,  Aug.-Sept.,  1926, 
p.  97. 

12  The  document  was  published  in  The  Messenger  of  the  Holy 
Synod,  No.  11,  1926. 


280  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

The  only  exception  among  the  Eastern  patriarchs 
(not  including  the  heads  of  autocephalous  churches)  in 
granting  acknowledgment  to  the  Russian  Holy  Synod 
is  the  patriarch  of  Antioch,  who  still  persists  in  his 
earlier  inimical  attitude. 

^  Moreover,  the  Holy  Synod  found  it  expedient  to 
adopt  a  policy  of  moderation  in  regard  to  the  method  of 
execution  of  some  of  the  reformatory  legislation  passed 
by  the  second  Sobor;  for  instance,  in  the  matter  of  the 
married  episcopate  which  had  caused  so  much  opposi¬ 
tion,  and  had  resulted  in  serious  losses  to  the  move¬ 
ment  by  reason  of  the  charges  of  uncanonicity  and 
even  of  heresy,  the  new  administration  did  not,  indeed, 
abandon  the  principle  of  the  legislation,  but  adopted  a 
policy  of  procrastination  in  putting  it  into  effect. 
Wherever  the  innovation  would  cause  offense  to  the 
masses,  the  Synod  desisted  from  forcing  the  matter. 
The  whole  question  was  likewise  referred  to  the  next 
(eighth)  Ecumenical  Council  for  a  final  settlement, 
and  the  Synod  professed  to  be  entirely  ready  and  will¬ 
ing  to  accept  the  disposition  of  the  question  by  the 
Council.  The  same  policy  was  adopted  regarding  the 
second  marriage  of  clerics  and  the  introduction  of  the 
Gregorian  calendar:  wherever  signs  of  restiveness  in 
regard  to  the  innovations  appeared  among  the  people, 
the  matter  was  dropped,  and  thus  the  parishes  were 
practically  given  a  local  option  to  accept  or  reject  the 
reforms.  These  opportunist ,  policies  were  productive  of 
greater  stabilization  of  the  position  of  the  Holy  Synod. 

An  interesting  episode,  characteristic  of  the  kaleido¬ 
scopic  nature  of  Russian  ecclesiastical  politics,  and  at 
the  same  time  throwing  considerable  light  upon  the 
psychology  of  the  leading  personalities  of  the  various 
parties,  was  the  reception  of  the  leader  of  the  Living 


A  House  Divided  Against  Itself  281 

Church,  probably  the  most  radical  of  the  former 
reformist  personalities,  back  into  the  patriarchal  fold, 
and  the  positively  astounding  circumstance  that  from 
the  beginning  he  was  granted  a  leading  place  on  the 
Supreme  Ecclesiastical  Council  of  Patriarch  Tikhon. 
On  May  19,  1924,  Tikhon  sent  a  resolution  to  his 
Synod,  in  which  he  informed  them: 

'  For  the  sake  of  peace  and  weal  of  the  church,  in  man¬ 
ifestation  of  my  patriarchal  clemency,  I  agree  to  receive 
back  into  fellowship  Protopresbyter  V.  Krasnitsky.  I 
submit  to  the  Holy  Synod  the  question  of  his  admit¬ 
tance  into  the  membership  of  the  Supreme  Ecclesias¬ 
tical  Council. 

\  Patriarch  Tikhon.13 

This  interesting  document  was  passed  upon  by  the 
patriarchal  Synod  on  May  21,  and  Krasnitsky  found 
himself  a  veritable  member  of  the  organization  which 
he,  more  than  anybody  else,  perhaps,  helped  to  under¬ 
mine.  However,  he  did  not  permanently  remain  a 
member  of  it.  There  is  not  an  iota  of  evidence  that 
Krasnitsky  was  required  to  profess  any  repentance  for 
his  wrongdoing,  nor  was  that  suggested  in  the  patri¬ 
archal  message  to  the  Synod.  What  must  have  been 
his  feelings  to  find  himself  among  the  formerly  so  hated 
‘‘black  episcopacy”?  What  wTas  really  back  of  the 
astounding  transaction?  We  do  not  know.  But  the 
very  fact  that  Krasnitsky  would  accept  a  high  position 
on  the  patriarchal  governing  Synod,  and  that  Tikhon 
was  willing  to  grant  it  to  a  man  who  did  not  even 
publicly  repent  of  what  must  have  been  regarded  as  a 
positive  and  grievous  wrong-doing,  throws  an  unfavor¬ 
able  light  on  both  these  important  personages. 

18  In  The  Messenger  of  the  Holy  Synod,  No.  3,  1925,  p.  9. 


282  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

In  the  meantime,  the  anti-patriarchal  Holy  Synod 
went  on  with  its  labors  and  gradually  was  able  to  over¬ 
come  the  inauspicious  circumstances  into  which  the 
initial  popular  landslide  of  sympathy  for  the  patriarch 
had  thrown  the  reforming  groups.  In  February,  1925, 
Metropolitan  Benjamin  of  Leningrad — a  man  of  great 
personal  charm  and  one  of  the  eldest  of  the  hierarchs  of 
the  pre-revolutionary  ordination — displaced  Metropoli¬ 
tan  Evdokim  as  the  head  of  the  Holy  Synod.  The 
party  had  been  growing  steadily  and  organized  its  work 
on  a  plan  which  was  certain  to  strengthen  its  influence, 
that  of  organizing  regional  administrations,  somewhat 
on  the  plan  which  the  Russian  government  had  adopted 
regarding  the  various  nationalities  within  the  confines 
of  the  state.  The  administrations  were  granted  inner 
autonomy,  although  they  were  outwardly  bound  by 
recognition  of  the  decrees  of  the  Sobor  of  1923.  Thus 
arose  the  regional  Ecclesiastical  Administration  of  the 
Ukraine,  of  Siberia,  of  the  Far  East,  and  of  White  Rus¬ 
sia,  as  well  as  the  foreign  eparchies,  as  in  North 
America  and  in  Western  Europe.  Gradually,  the  great 
country  comprising  the  Union  of  Soviet  Socialistic 
Republics  was  partitioned  ecclesiastically,  the  bulk  of 
Tikhon’s  following  remaining  in  the  North  and  the 
Central  part  of  Russia  (with  Moscow  almost  solidly  in 
their  possession),  while  the  synodical  party  claimed  the 
allegiance  of  White  Russia,  the  Ukraine,  the  Volga 
regions,  Siberia,  and  the  Far  East. 

The  Holy  Synod  likewise  organized  a  theological 
academy  with  the  means  promised  and  partly  paid  by 
Bishop  Blake;  this  first  and  only  theological  academy 
was  housed  in  the  headquarters  of  the  Holy  Synod,  in 
Troitskoe  podvor’e  in  Moscow,  and  resumed,  even 
though  under  most  discouraging  and  difficult  condi- 


283 


A  House  Divided  Against  Itself 

tions,  its  work  of  educating  the  future  priesthood  of  the 
Russian  church.  The  work  suffered  most  acutely 
because  of  lack  of  funds,  the  students  were  housed  in 
the  basement,  where  they  lived  under  wretched, 
unhealthful  conditions,  and  the  professors  were  paid  a 
pittance,  and  not  always  regularly.  Later,  a  second 
theological  academy  was  opened  in  Leningrad. 

Thejpatriarchal  party  suffered  a  very  serious  loss  in 
the  removal  by  death  from  the  leadership  of  the  party 
of  Patriarch  Tikhon.  As  already  pointed  out,  much  of 
the  popular  allegiance  to  the  party  was  really  personal 
devotion  to  the  patriarch,  who  was  regarded  as  a  mar¬ 
tyr  suffering  for  the  faith.  He  died  on  April  7,  1925,  at 
eleven  forty-five  p.m.,  after  an  illness  which  necessi¬ 
tated  his  removal  to  a  hospital.  He  was  apparently 
recovered  to  the  extent  that  on  the  day  of  his  death  he 
had  expected  to  return  to  the  Donskoy  Monastery, 
when  complications  set  in  which  terminated  his  life; 
he  seems  to  have  died  of  heart  failure.  He  was  interred 
in  the  Winter  Chapel  of  the  Donskoy  Monastery,  on 
the  outskirts  of  Moscow,  which  he  had  made  his  resi¬ 
dence  since  his  return  from  prison.  At  the  time 
appointed  for  the  funeral,  such  enormous  crowds  gath¬ 
ered  to  pay  the  departed  primate  their  tribute  that  it 
took  the  entire  day  to  permit  the  people  to  pass  the 
casket  in  which  the  body  lay.  Eye-witnesses  describe 
the  scene  as  most  impressive,  for  throughout  the  long 
day,  as  the  enormous  crowd  passed  by  one  by  one,  not 
a  sound  was  heard;  all  passed  on,  awed  into  solemn 
silence. 

The  patriarch  was  buried  under  the  stone  pavement 
of  the  unpretentious  old  Winter  Chapel  of  this  monas¬ 
tery,  which  dates  centuries  back,  and  over  the  place 
was  erected  a  simple,  altar-like  structure,  which  is  kept 


284  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

constantly  decorated  with  green  branches  and  flowers, 
with  a  motley  array  of  lamps  suspended  over  it.  At 
present,  there  is  exhibited  within  this  enclosure  under  a 
glass  globe  Tikhon’s  white  patriarchal  cowl,  reputed  to 
have  belonged  to  the  famous  Patriarch  Nikon.  Back 
of  it  are  Tikhon’s  cross  and  crozier.  People  come  and 
prostrate  themselves  before  this  structure  as  if  before 
a  shrine  of  a  saint,  and  it  would  not  be  surprising  if 
that  proved  to  be  the  final  outcome  of  the  career  of  the 
patriarch. 

Those  who  knew  Patriarch  Tikhon’s  life  after  his 
release  from  prison  bear  testimony  to  the  fact  that  he 
honestly  kept  the  promise  made  at  that  time  no  longer 
to  continue  the  anti-governmental  policies  of  the  earlier 
period  of  his  administration.  This  is  the  witness  of  no 
less  an  authority  than  the  vice-president  of  the  U.  S. 
S.  R.,  Peter  G.  Smidovich,  in  charge  of  the  department 
of  ecclesiastical  affairs,  given  in  a  personal  interview 
with  the  writer.  He  summed  up  his  judgment  of  Tik¬ 
hon  by  saying  that  he  was  an  honorable  man  who  kept 
his  promise,  but  his  associates  were  not  in  sympathy 
with  that  policy  and  often  were  able  to  circumvent  the 
patriarch’s  intention.  Smidovich  said  that  at  first  he 
had  mistrusted  the  patriarch,  but  after  he  held  a  per¬ 
sonal  interview  with  him  he  became  convinced  of  the 
honesty  of  Tikhon’s  personal  intentions;  but  he  also 
perceived  that  the  patriarch  was  too  weak  to  make  his 
own  will  supreme,  permitting  himself  to  be  thwarted 
much  of  the  time  by  his  associates.  The  sincerity  of 
the  patriarch  is  abundantly  attested  by  the  famous 
document  which  was  prepared  by  him  shortly  before 
his  death,  although  it  was  not  published  until  after  his 
decease;  it  came  to  be  known  as  the  patriarch’s  “Last 
Will.”  This  most  important  historical  evidence  of  the 


A  House  Divided  Against  Itself  285 

attitude  of  the  patriarch  toward  the  state,  and  his 
solicitude  for  the  resumption  of  normal  relations  on  the 
part  of  the  church  and  in  view  of  the  new  conditions 
surrounding  it,  is  worthy  of  full  quotation  as  it 
appeared  in  the  Izvestiya .14 

By  the  grace  of  God,  humble  Tikhon,  the  patriarch 
of  Moscow  and  of  all  Russia. 

Grace  and  peace  from  our  Lord  and  Savior,  Jesus 
Christ. 

During  the  years  of  the  great  civil  upheavel,  in 
accordance  with  the  will  of  God  without  which  noth¬ 
ing  happens  in  this  world,  the  Soviet  government 
became  the  head  of  the  Russian  state,  and  took  upon 
itself  a  heavy  responsibility — the  removal  of  the  bur¬ 
densome  consequences  of  the  bloody  war  and  of  the 
terrible  famine. 

Entering  upon  the  administration  of  the  Russian 
state,  the  representatives  of  the  Soviet  authority  issued, 
in  January,  1918,  a  decree  concerning  the  full  liberty 
of  the  citizens  to  believe  as  they  please  and  to  live  in 
accordance  with  that  faith.  In  such  manner,  the  prin¬ 
ciple  of  liberty  of  conscience,  affirmed  by  the  Consti¬ 
tution  of  the  U.  S.  S.  R.,  guaranteed  to  every  religious 
society,  and  in  that  number  to  our  Orthodox  church, 
the  right  as  well  as  the  possibility  to  live  and  to  con¬ 
duct  its  religious  affairs  in  conformity  with  the 
demands  of  its  faith,  so  long  as  they  did  not  infringe 
upon  public  order  and  the  rights  of  other  citizens. 
Therefore,  we  have  acknowledged  to  the  whole  nation, 
in  its  time,  in  our  messages  to  the  hierarchs,  priests, 
and  their  flocks,  the  new  order  of  affairs  as  well  as  the 
Workers-Peasants’  government  as  a  government  which 
the  nation  sincerely  welcomed. 

It  is  time  that  the  believers  understand  the  Christian 
point  of  view,  that  “the  destiny  of  nations  is  directed 


14  No.  86,  April  15,  1925. 


286  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 


by  the  Lord/7  and  to  accept  all  that  has  come  to  pass 
as  the  expression  of  the  will  of  God.  Without  sinning 
against  our  faith  or  church,  without  surrenderihg  any¬ 
thing  of  them,  in  a  word,  without  permitting  any  com¬ 
promises  or  concessions  in  the  realm  of  belief,  in  our 
relation  as  citizens  we  must  be  sincere  in  our  attitude 
toward  the  Soviet  government  and  the  labors  of  the 
U.  S.  S.  R.  for  general  welfare,  conforming  the  outward 
form  of  church  life  and  activity  to  the  new  govern¬ 
mental  order,  condemning  all  association  with  the 
enemies  of  the  Soviet  government  and  all  open  or 
secret  agitation  against  it. 

Offering  our  prayers  for  the  outpouring  of  God’s 
blessings  on  the  labors  of  the  nations  which  have  united 
their  forces  in  the  name  of  common  good,  we  call  upon 
all  beloved  members  of  the  God-protected  Russian 
church  in  these  responsible  times  of  upbuilding  of  the 
common  welfare  of  the  nation,  to  unite  with  us  in  a 
<$  fervent  prayer  to  the  Highest  for  granting  aid  to  the 
$  Workers-Peasants7  government  in  its  labors  for  the 
*  .  good  of  the  masses  of  common  people.  We  call  upon 
the  parochial  societies,  and  especially  upon  their  execu¬ 
tive  officials,  not  to  admit  any  individuals^  anti-gov- 
X  ernmental  inclinations,  nor  to  nurture  hopes  for  the 
restoration  of  the  monarchical  system,  but  to  become 
convinced  that  the  Soviet  government  is  actually  the 
national  Workers-Peasants7  government,  and  hence 
durable  and  stable.  s  We  make  an  appeal  that  worthy 
people,  honorable  and  devoted  to  the  Orthodox  church, 
not  meddling“m  politics  and  sincerely  loyal  to  the 
Soviet  government,  be  chosen  for  parochial  councils. 
The  activity  of  the  parochial  societies  must  not  be 
exhausted  in  the  political  game,  which  is  utterly  foreign 
to  the  church  of  God,  but  in  the  strengthening  of  the 
Orthodox  faith,  for  the  enemies  of  the  holy  Orthodoxy 
are  the  sectarians,  the  Catholics,  the  Protestants,  the 
new-churchmen  (the  synodical  party),  the  atheists; 


A  House  Divided  Against  Itself  287 

and  such  like,  who  endeavor  to  use  every  opportunity 
which  offers  itself  in  the  life  of  the  Orthodox  church 
for  its  injury.  The  enemies  of  the  church  adopt  all 
kinds  of  deceit,  compulsion,  as  well  as  bribery,  in  their 
efforts  to  reach  their  goal.  It  suffices  to  look  upon  the 
events  in  Poland,  where  out  of  the  three  hundred  and 
fifty  churches  and  monasteries  existing  there,  only 
fifty  are  left.  The  rest  were  either  closed  or  turned  into 
(Catholic  16)  churches,  not  to  mention  those  persecu¬ 
tions  to  which  our  Orthodox  clergy  was  subjected. 

Now  we,  by  the  grace  of  God,  having  regained 
health,  ''again  entering  upon  the  service  of  the  church 
of  God,  call  upon  you,  beloved  brethren-hierarchs  and 
priests,  once  more  condemning  all  opposition  to  the 
government,  as  well  as  all  evil-intentioned  projects, 
sedition,  and  all  hatred  of  the  government,  to  devote 
yourselves  to  the  work  of  pacification  of  your  flock  and 
of  edification  of  the  church  of  God. 

In  deference  to  fhe  duty  incumbent  upon  us  to  guard 
the  purity  of  church  life,  seeking  first  of  all  the  salva¬ 
tion  of  men  and  the  realization  in  life  of  the  eternal 
divine  principles,  jve  cannot  but  condemn  those  who, 
in  forgetfulness  of  the  divine  ends,  misuse  their  ecclesi¬ 
astical  position  by  giving  themselves  beyond  measure 
to  the  human,  and  often  degraded  political  game,  some¬ 
times  even  of  a  culpable  character ;  therefore,  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  the  duty  of  our  office  as  primate,  we  approve 
of  appointing  a  special  commission  to  be  charged  with 
the  investigation,  and  if  deemed  proper,  even  removal 
from  office,  in  accordance  with  the  canonical  rules,  of 
those  hierarchs  and  priests  who  persist  in  their  per¬ 
versity  and  refuse  to  manifest  a  repentance  of  it  before 
the  Soviet  government,  and  to  bring  such  before  the 
tribunal  of  the  Orthodox  Sobor. 

At  the  same  time,  we  must  mention  with  a  deep  sor¬ 
row  that  certain  sons  of  Russia,  and  even  hierarchs  and 

1 B  Inserted  by  the  translator. 


288  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

priests,  have  left  the  fatherland  for  various  reasons, 
and  already  have  busied  themselves  in  activities  to 
which  they  have  not  been  called  and  which  in  any  case 
are  injurious  to  our  church.  Making  use  of  our  name 
and  our  ecclesiastical  authority,  they  have  carried  on 
harmful  and  counter-revolutionary  activity.  We  posi¬ 
tively  declare  that  we  have  no  connection  with  them,  as 
our  enemies  affirm;  they  are  strangers  to  us,  and  we 
condemn  their  harmful  activity.  They  have  freedom 
of  conviction,  but  they  use  our  name  and  the  name  of 
the  holy  church  in  an  unauthorized  fashion  and  against 
the  canons  of  our  church,  feigning  to  be  solicitous  about 
its  good.  The  so-called  Sobor  of  Karlovtsi  brought  no 
blessing  to  the  church  or  the  nation,  and  we  again  con¬ 
firm  its  condemnation,  and  hold  it  necessary  to  proclaim 
firmly  and  positively  that  any  such  further  attempt 
will  call  forth  on  our  part  extreme  measures,  even  to 
the  forbidding  of  the  ministry  and  trial  by  the  tribunal 
of  the  Sobor.  In  order  to  avoid  such  severe  penalties, 
we  call  upon  all  hierarchs  and  priests  abroad  to  cease 
their  political  activity  in  connection  with  the  enemies 
of  our  nation,  and  to  have  the  manliness  to  return  to 
the  fatherland  and  to  speak  the  truth  about  themselves 
and  the  church  of  God. 

Their  activity  should  be  investigated.  They  should 
give  an  account  of  themselves  to  the  Orthodox  ecclesi¬ 
astical  conscience.  We  order  that  a  special  commission 
should  investigate  the  activity  of  the  hierarchs  and 
priests  who  have  fled  abroad,  and  especially  of  Metro¬ 
politan  Antony,  formerly  of  Kiev;  Platon,  formerly  of 
Odessa,  as  well  as  others,  and  immediately  to  prepare 
a  statement  concerning  their  activity.  Their  refusal 
to  submit  to  our  demand  will  oblige  us  to  judge  them  in 
their  absence. 

Our  enemies,  endeavoring  to  separate  us  from  our 
beloved  children,  the  priests  entrusted  us  by  God,  are 
spreading  lying  rumors  that  we  are  not  at  liberty  in  our 


A  House  Divided  Against  Itself  289 

patriarchal  office  to  speak  freely,  and  even  are  not  free 
in  conscience;  that  we  are  controlled  by  the  presump¬ 
tive  enemies  of  the  people  and  deprived  of  the  possibil¬ 
ity  of  having  communication  with  the  flock  we  lead. 
We  declare  all  such  inventions  regarding  our  lack  of 
freedom  to  be  lies  and  seduction,  for  there  is  no  gov¬ 
ernment  upon  the  earth  which  could  bind  our  sacer¬ 
dotal  conscience  or  our  patriarchal  word.  Fearlessly 
and  trustfully  looking  toward  the  future  course  of  the 
holy  Orthodoxy,  we  humbly  beseech  you,  our  beloved 
children,  to  guard  the  work  of  God,  and  the  sons  of 
lawlessness  will  have  no  success. 

Calling  God's  blessing  upon  the  hierarchs,  priests, 
and  children  who  are  faithful  to  us,  we  beseech  you 
with  a  peaceful  conscience,  without  fear  of  sinning 
against  the  holy  faith,  submit  yourselves  to  the  Soviet 
government  not  out  of  fear,  but  because  of  conscience, 
remembering  the  words  of  the  Apostle:  “Let  every  soul 
be  obedient  to  those  who  rule  over  them;  for  there  is 
no  government,  but  is  ordained  of  God — and  the 
governments  that  be  are  of  God."  (Rom.  xiii.  1.) 

At  the  same  time  we  express  a  firm  belief  that  the 
establishment  of  pure  and  sincere  relations  will 
prompt  our  government  to  deal  with  us  with  full  con¬ 
fidence,  and  will  give  us  the  possibility  to  teach  our 
children  the  law  of  God,  to  open  theological  schools 
for  the  training  of  priesthood,  and  to  publish  books 
and  journals  in  defense  of  the  Orthodox  faith. 

May  the  Lord  strengthen  you  all  in  devotion  to 
the  Orthodox  faith,  church,  and  its  hierarchy. 

Patriarch  Tikhon 

Donskoy  Monastery, 

April  7,  1925. 10 

Such  was  the  astounding  document  which  appeared 
immediately  after  the  patriarch's  death  and  stirred 


18  The  Messenger ,  No.  3,  1925. 


290  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

more  excited  comment  even  than  did  his  “Confession,” 
published  upon  his  release  from  prison.  As  might  be 
expected,  those  who  did  not  choose  to  follow  the  patri¬ 
arch’s  changed  policy  regarding  the  recognition  of  the 
Soviet  government  instantly  came  forward  with  the 
theory  of  a  forgery.  They  worked  out  a  hypothesis 
that,  during  Tikhon’s  illness,  and  possibly  very  shortly 
before  his  death,  this  document  was  drawn  up  and  his 
signature  forged.  They  especially  appealed,  in  support 
of  their  claim,  to  the  fact  that  the  document  pur¬ 
ported  to  have  been  signed  in  the  Donskoy  Monastery, 
to  which  the  patriarch  did  not  return  from  the  hospital, 
but  to  which  only  his  dead  body  was  carried. 

All  such  allegations,  however,  are  too  weak  to  with¬ 
stand  the  reasons  for  regarding  the  proclamation  as 
genuine.  The  strongest  of  these  is  that  the  document 
was  sent  to  the  editors  of  the  Izvestiya  by  the  suc¬ 
cessor  to  Tikhon’s  office,  Metropolitan  Peter,  and  by 
Metropolitan  Tikhon  of  Ural.  Their  letter  reads 
as  follows : 

The  Editorial  Office  of  Izvestiya. 

Citizen  Editor: 

We  beg  that  you  do  not  refuse  space  in  your  paper 
Izvestiya  to  the  enclosed  proclamation  of  Patriarch 
Tikhon,  signed  by  him  on  April  7,  1925. 

Peter,  Metropolitan  Krutitsky 
Tikhon,  Metropolitan  Uralsky 

April  14,  1925.17 

It  certainly  cannot  be  supposed  that  these  two 
strong  leaders  of  the  patriarchal  party  would  in  any 
way  be  connected  with  a  forgery,  or  that,  had  it  taken 
place,  they  would  have  no  knowledge  of  it.  Moreover, 

17  Quoted  from  The  Messenger  of  the  Holy  Synod,  No.  3,  1925, 
p.  5. 


A  House  Divided  Against  Itself  291 

the  document  was  in  their  possession,  and  was  sent  by 
them  to  the  newspapers  rather  than  published  by  the 
government  directly.  This  in  itself  has  considerable 
weight  in  witnessing  to  the  authenticity  of  the  docu¬ 
ment.  Moreover,  it  would  not  be  in  the  interest  of  the 
government  to  promulgate  such  a  document,  for  if  the 
government  desired  the  destruction  of  the  church  it 
would  attempt  to  foment  an  anti-governmental 
struggle,  and  would  be  but  poorly  served  by  an  attempt 
to  allay  it,  as  the  published  document  does. 

As  for  the  dating  of  the  document  in  the  Donskoy 
Monastery,  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  patriarch 
expected  to  return  there  the  same  day  that  death  over¬ 
took  him.  It  is  easily  conceivable  that,  with  such 
expectations,  he  preferred  to  have  the  document  dated 
at  the  place  of  his  official  headquarters  rather  than  at 
the  hospital.  Moreover,  had  not  his  sudden  death 
intervened,  this  point  certainly  would  not  have  been 
raised. 

This  document,  accepting  its  genuineness,  once 
more  confirms  the  anti-governmental  character  of  the 
policies  of  the  patriarchal  party,  even  though  now 
the  patriarch  no  longer  shared  them.  There  can  be 
no  reasonable  doubt,  accepting  the  strictures  passed 
by  the  patriarch  himself  upon  the  various  attempts  of 
some  of  the  leaders  of  the  hierarchy  and  clergy  to 
obstruct  the  working  of  the  new  regime,  that  the  con¬ 
dition  described  by  him  actually  existed. 


CHAPTER  XI 


THE  PRESENT  SITUATION 

The  death  of  Tikhon  deprived  the  patriarchal  party 
of  its  leader,  but  did  not  impair  its  determination  to 
fight  for  the  cause  represented  by  the  departed  pri¬ 
mate.  It  may,  of  course,  very  well  be  that  the  death 
of  Patriarch  Tikhon  was  not  received  with  an  alto¬ 
gether  genuine  grief  even  in  the  ranks  of  the  patriarchal 
leaders,  for  if  it  really  were  true  that  the  party  was  so 
thickly  honeycombed  with  persons  of  anti-Soviet  ten¬ 
dencies  as  the  posthumous  document  of  the  patriarch 
would  imply,  their  regret  must  have  been  considerably 
tempered  by  a  feeling  of  relief,  for  they  must  have 
found  the  patriarch’s  policy  increasingly  irksome. 

Within  five  days  after  the  passing  away  of  Tikhon, 
his  temporary  successor,  or  rather  locum  tenens,  was 
selected  in  the  person  of  Metropolitan  Krutitsky, 
Peter.  The  selection  was  made  in  accordance  with  the 
j  directions  penned  by  the  deceased  patriarch  on  Decem¬ 
ber  24,  1924  (o.s.;  Jan.  7,  1925,  n.s.),  in  which  he  ruled 
that  until  such  a  time  as  a  legal  election  of  a  new 
!  patriarch  could  be  held,  the  patriarchal  prerogatives 
and  duties  were  to  pass  to  Metropolitan  Cyril,  and 
in  case  he  should  be  prevented  from  assuming  them,  to 
Metropolitan  Agathangel;  but  if  even  the  latter  could 
not  assume  the  office,  then  the  office  should  pass  to 
Peter,  Metropolitan  Krutitsky.  Upon  the  death  of 
Tikhon,  a  group  of  fifty-nine  bishops  approved  these 

292 


The  Present  Situation 


293 


directions  and  ruled  that  since  neither  Cyril  nor  Agath- 
angel  “is  at  present  in  Moscow,  and  cannot  assume  the 
duties  laid  upon  them  by  the  above-cited  document” 
(the  reason  why  is  not  stated),  they  acknowledged 
Metropolitan  Peter  as  “the  guardian  of  the  patriarchal 
office.”1  Thus  Peter  became  a  temporary  successor  of 
Tikhon,  until  such  a  time  as  conditions  should 
permit  the  calling  of  a  canonically  regular  Sobor  for 
the  election  of  a  patriarch. 

The  canonical  rules  specified  that  the  election  of  a 
new  patriarch  must  be  postponed  till  forty  days  after 
the  death  of  the  previous  one.  But  even  after  the 
canonical  period  had  elapsed,  no  Sobor  was  held,  either 
because  the  government  authorities  would  not  allow 
any  such  Sobor  to  be  held,  or  because  so  many  patri¬ 
archal  bishops  were  in  prison  or  in  exile  that  the  Sobor 
would  be  attended  by  a  mere  handful  of  them,  or 
because  the  party  made  no  attempt  to  hold  it.  It 
seems  that  the  second  of  these  is  the  most  probable 
reason.2  At  any  rate,  Peter  was  never  formally  elected 
to  the  patriarchal  office,  and  remained  merely  ..its 
guardian,  or  a  locum  tenens.  Although  he  exercised 
many  prerogatives  of  the  patriarchal  office,  his  legal 
position,  of  course,  gave  him  no  such  authority,  for  he 
could  claim  no  such  legal  prerogatives  over  the  revolt¬ 
ing  Holy  Synod  as  were  claimed  by  Tikhon  by  reason 
of  his  election  by  the  first  Sobor.  Thus  Peter  really 
became  no  more  than  the  head  of  the  patriarchal  party. 
The  objection  to  Peter  is,  therefore,  much  more  serious 

1  The  American  Orthodox  Messenger,  No.  8,  Aug.,  1925. 

2  In  my  interview  with  Smidovich,  head  of  the  department  of 
ecclesiastical  affairs,  I  asked  him  which  of  these  two  alternatives  was 
correct.  He  replied  that  he  knew  of  no  petition  sent  to  the  govern¬ 
ment,  asking  for  permission  to  hold  such  a  Sobor;  he  affirmed  that 
the  party  as  far  as  he  knew  made  no  attempt  to  hold  the  Sobor. 


294  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 


than  it  was  to  Tikhon :  Peter’s  claims  rest  solely  on  the 
fact  that  Tikhon  had  assigned  him  the  position  of  the 
locum  tenens,  or  practically  speaking,  had  appointed 
him  to  it,  and  that  a  group  of  bishops  belonging  to  the 
patriarchal  party  had  acknowledged  this  appointment. 

The  death  of  Tikhon  offered  a  fair  occasion  for 
reunion  of  the  two  parties  within  the  Russian  Ortho¬ 
dox  Church:  the  split  had  been  caused  to  some  extent 
by  a  feeling  of  personal  loyalty  to  the  former  patriarch, 
although  also  largely  by  the  roughshod  methods  of  the 
Sobor  in  1923  in  handling  its  opponents,  as  well  as  by 
some  of  its  really  questionable  actions.  One  of  these 
causes — the  personal  loyalty  to  Tikhon — was  now 
removed  by  his  death.  The  time  was  opportune  to 
make  an  attempt  to  reunite  the  church. 

This  opportunity  was  promptly  seized  by  the  synod¬ 
ical  party,  by  making  an  official  tender  to  the  patri¬ 
archal  party  of  parleys  over  the  question  of  reunion. 
The  offer  took  the  form  of  an  invitation  to  the  Third 
Sobor,  planned  for  the  fall  of  1925. 

The  Holy  Synod  presumes  that  it  is  time  to  forget 
the  very  words  of  “Tikhonites”  and  “new-churchmen,” 
[the  proclamation  goes  on]  and  solely  to  remember 
that  we  all  are  Orthodox  children  of  one  Mother 
church. 

The  Holy  Synod,  in  order  to  terminate  the  schism 
within  the  church,  calls  in  the  autumn  of  the  present 
year  an  All-Russian  Sobor  to  Moscow,  which  will  be 
attended  by  representatives  of  all  Orthodox  societies 
of  our  land,  irrespective  of  whether  they  acknowledge 
w^the  authority  of  the  Holy  Synod  or  not. 

The  Holy  Synod  does  not  regard  itself  as  an 
immutable  organ  of  the  government  of  the  church. 


The  Present  Situation  295 

The  members  of  the  Holy  Synod,  each  separately 
and  all  together,  are  ready  to  surrender  their  places  to 
other  workers,  who  possibly  may  steer  the  ship  of 
church  better  and  more  faithfully.  However,  to 
decide  the  question  of  pacification  of  the  church  and  the 
organization  of  a  single  church  administration,  it  is 
necessary  to  call  a  Sobor. 

The  significance  of  such  a  Sobor  may  be  immense. 

The  Holy  Synod,  anxious  for  every  possible  needful 
precaution  for  the  success  of  the  Holy  Sobor,  turns 
herewith  to  all  clergy  of  the  Moscow  eparchy  with  an 
appeal  to  terminate  now  our  division,  and  to  forget, 
in  the  name  of  Christ  the  Risen,  all  our  mutual  affronts 
and  misunderstandings,  and  to  unite  now  for  the  pre- 
Sobor  labors. 

This  sincere  effort  to  unite  the  divided  church  was 
signed  by  the  president  of  the  Holy  Synod,  Metro¬ 
politan  Benjamin,  as  well  as  the  members  of  the  body, 
and  was  published  on  April  30,  1925.8  It  cannot,  how¬ 
ever,  be  sufficiently  regretted  that  this  outstretched 
hand  was  rejected  and  the  offer  spurned  by  the  leaders 
of  the  patriarchal  group.  The  patriarchal  party  did 
not  accept  the  invitation  to  meet  in  a  general  All-Rus¬ 
sian  Sobor  which  would  put  a  stop  to  the  schism  and 
devise  a  common,  unified  form  of  church  government. 
The  responsibility  for  the  continuance  of  the  schism, 
accordingly,  rests  chiefly,  if  not  exclusively,  upon  them, 
or  possibly  upon  their  leader,  Peter. 

So  the  Holy  Synod  alone  continued  its  preparations 
for  the  third  Sobor.  By  its  circular  of  June  13, 4  it 
again  invited  the  patriarchal  party  to  cooperation,  by 
declaring  that 

8  The  Messenger  of  the  Holy  Synod,  No.  2,  1925. 

4  No.  2382;  in  Ibid.,  No.  4,  1925,  p.  2. 


296  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

Orthodox  clerics  and  laymen  who  do  not  acknowl¬ 
edge  the  Sobor  of  1923  may  take  part  in  the  organiz¬ 
ing  labors  of  the  eparchial  conventions,  and  in  the 
elections  for  the  Sobor,  on  equal  terms  with  the  rest, 
in  accordance  with  the  conditions  which  shall  be 
determined  by  the  central  authority  and  announced 
later. 

In  case  the  separatist  bishops  should  refuse  to  confer 
with  us  and  the  attempts  to  make  connections  with 
the  rank  and  file  of  the  clergy  should  fail,  the  eparchial 
administration  should  turn  directly  to  the  masses  of 
the  believers  with  the  appeal  to  terminate,  in  the 
Sobor,  the  disruption  in  the  church  kindled  by  the 
“old-church”  upper  circles. 

The  first  offer,  published  shortly  after  the  death  of 
Tikhon,  was  passed  over  in  silence,  the  leaders  of  the 
patriarchal  party  not  deigning  to  reply.  The  second 
public  offer,  mentioned  above,  was  answered,  toward 
the  end  of  July,  by  Metropolitan  Peter,  through  one 
of  his  clerics,  by  asking  for  a  private  conference  between 
himself  and  the  members  of  the  Synod,  in  which  the 
matters  could  be  talked  over  informally.  The  con¬ 
ference  was  immediately  granted,  and  the  letter 
informing  him  of  it  was  personally  delivered  by  a 
member  of  the  Synod,  who  had  a  short  talk  with  the 
metropolitan  on  that  occasion.  The  gist  of  this  con¬ 
versation  was  that  Metropolitan  Peter  pleaded  lack  of 
authority  on  his  part  to  give  his  consent  even  to  the 
principle  of  reunion,  for  he  claimed  to  be  only  an 
administrative  official,  without  the  fullness  of  patri¬ 
archal  prerogatives.  To  decide  the  question,  it  would 
be  necessary  to  call  together,  and  to  gain  the  consent 
of,  all  bishops  of  his  party,  and  since  many  were  abroad 
and  others  were  in  prison,  he  suggested  that  the  Synod 


The  Present  Situation 


297 


employ  its  good  offices  to  secure  their  release.  The 
representative  of  the  Synod,  Archdeacon  Dobrov, 
answered  that  the  Synod  had  no  part  in  the  arrest 
of  these  hierarchs,  and  could  take  no  part  in  attempt¬ 
ing  to  secure  their  release,  for  the  charges  against 
them  were  political.  Whether  the  metropolitan  called 
his  hierarchs  together  or  not  does  not  appear;  but 
he  sent  no  reply  to  the  letter  of  the  Synod.6 

To  the  general  surprise,  however,  it  was  learned  that 
Peter,  in  spite  of  his  alleged  lack  of  authority  in  the 
matter,  had  already  made  public  a  proclamation  (dated 
July  28;  the  conversation  with  Dobrov  took  place  on 
July  29)  in  which  he  assumed  a  very  pronounced 
attitude  against  the  projected  Sobor.  After  paying  a 
few  “compliments”  to  the  Roman  Catholics  and  the 
sectarians,  he  devoted  the  bulk  of  his  proclamation  to 
the  synodical  party.  In  part,  he  said: 

At  the  present  time  the  so-called  new-churchmen 
more  and  more  discuss  the  matter  of  reunion  with  us. 
They  call  meetings  in  cities  and  villages,  and  invite 
Orthodox  clerics  and  laymen  to  a  common  adjudication 
of  the  question  of  reunion  with  us,  and  to  prepare  for 
their  pseudo-Sobor  which  they  are  calling  for  the 
autumn  of  this  year.  But  it  must  be  clearly  recalled 
that  according  to  the  canonical  rules  of  the  Ecumenical 
church  such  arbitrarily  gathered  councils  as  were  the 
meetings  of  the  Living  Church  in  1923,  are  illegal. 
Hence  the  canonical  rules  forbid  Orthodox  Christians 
to  take  part  in  them  and  much  more  to  elect  repre¬ 
sentatives  for  such  gatherings.  In  accordance  with 
the  20th  rule  of  the  Council  of  Antioch,  “no  one  is 
permitted  to  call  a  Council  alone,  without  those  bishops 
who  are  in  charge  of  the  metropolitanates.”  In  the 
holy  church  of  God  only  that  is  lawful  which  is 


298  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

approved  by  the  God-ordained  ecclesiastical  govern¬ 
ment,  preserved  by  succession  since  the  time  of  the 
apostles.  All  arbitrary  acts,  everything  that  was  done 
by  the  new-church  party  without  the  approval  of  the 
most  holy  patriarch  now  at  rest  with  God,  everything 
that  is  now  done  without  our  approval — of  the  guard¬ 
ian  of  the  patriarchal  throne,  acting  in  conjunction 
with  all  lawful  Orthodox  hierarchy — all  this  has  no 
validity  in  accordance  with  the  canons  of  the  holy 
church  (An.,  rule  34;  Antioch,  rule  9),  for  the  true 
church  is  one,  and  the  grace  of  the  most  holy  Spirit 
residing  in  it  is  one,  for  there  can  be  no  two  churches 
or  two  graces.  “There  is  one  body,  and  one  Spirit, 
even  as  ye  are  called  in  one  hope  of  your  calling;  one 
Lord,  one  faith,  one  God  and  Father  of  all.”  (Eph.  iv. 
4-6.) 

The  so-called  new-churchmen  should  talk  of  no 
reunion  with  the  Orthodox  church  until  they  show  a 
sincere  repentance  of  their  errors.  The  chief  of  these 
errors  is  that  they  had  arbitrarily  renounced  the  lawful 
hierarchy  and  its  head,  the  most  holy  patriarch,  and 
attempted  to  reform  the  church  of  Christ  by  self- 
invented  teaching  ( The  Living  Church ,  No.  1-11) ;  they 
had  transgressed  the  ecclesiastical  rules  which  were 
established  by  Ecumenical  Councils  (the  pronounce¬ 
ments  of  the  pseudo-Sobor  of  May  4,  1923) ;  they  had 
rejected  the  government  of  the  patriarch,  which  was 
established  by  the  Sobor  and  acknowledged  by  all 
Eastern  Orthodox  patriarchs,  i.e.  they  had  rejected 
what  all  Orthodoxy  accepted,  and  besides,  they  had 
even  condemned  him  at  their  pseudo-Sobor.  Contrary 
to  the  rules  of  the  holy  Apostles,  Ecumenical  Councils, 
and  the  holy  Fathers  (Apostolic  rule  17,  18;  Sixth 
Ecumenical  Council,  rule  3,  13,  48;  St.  Basil  the  Great, 
rule  12),  they  permit  the  bishops  to  marry  and  the 
clerics  to  contract  a  second  marriage,  i.e.  they  trans¬ 
gress  what  the  entire  Ecumenical  church  acknowledges 


The  Present  Situation  299 

to  be  a  law,  which  can  be  changed  solely  by  an 
Ecumenical  Council. 

The  reunion  of  the  so-called  new-churchmen  with  the 
holy  Orthodox  church  is  possible  only  on  the  condition 
that  each  of  them  recants  his  errors  and  submits  to  a 
public  repentance  for  his  apostasy  from  the  church. 
We  pray  the  Lord  God  without  ceasing  that  He  may 
restore  the  erring  into  the  bosom  of  the  holy  Ortho¬ 
dox  church.* 

This  is  an  excellent  statement  of  the  case  of  the 
patriarchal  party,  and  it  may  readily  be  granted  that, 
from  the  canonical  point  of  view,  it  is  not  only  most 
formidable,  but  positively  unanswerable.  If  canonical 
considerations  alone  were  to  decide  upon  the  merits 
of  the  two  parties,  the  patriarchal  party  would  easily 
secure  the  victory. 

Replying  to  such  a  sharp  rebuff,  the  Holy  Synod 
issued  three  separate  proclamations,  answering  point  by 
point  the  charges  made  by  Peter,  and  once  more  fer¬ 
vently  appealing  to  the  masses  of  the  patriarchal  party 
to  take  the  direction  of  affairs  into  their  own  hands,  in 
view  of  the  manifest  refusal  of  their  leaders  to  deal 
with  the  question  of  the  existing  schism.  As  might  be 
foreseen,  even  these  attempts  were  fruitless.  There¬ 
upon,  the  Synod  adopted  different  tactics:  in  almost 
all  eparchies,  similar  efforts  were  made  to  gain  the 
eparchial  authorities,  but  the  results  were  likewise 
totally  disappointing.7 

Under  such  circumstances,  the  third  All-Russian 
Sobor  of  the  Orthodox  church  opened  its  sessions  on 
October  1,  1925,  in  that  cradle  of  the  reformist  move¬ 
ment,  the  church  of  Christ  the  Savior.  It  was  attended 

8  The  American  Orthodox  Messenger,  No.  8,  Aug.,  1925,  pp.  51-52. 

7  Article,  “What  Was  Done  for  Church  Pacification,”  in  The  Mes¬ 
senger,  No.  7,  1926,  pp.  5ff. 


300  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

by  one  hundred  and  one  bishops,  archbishops,  and 
metropolitans,  one  hundred  and  twenty  priests,  and 
one  hundred  and  twenty-four  laymen,  all  of  whom  were 
official  representatives,  with  the  right  to  vote;  but 
aside  from  these  there  were  twenty-five  in  attendance 
who  did  not  possess  the  right.8  The  presidium  of  the 
Sobor  consisted  of  the  president,  Metropolitan  Ben¬ 
jamin  of  Leningrad,  and  an  honorary  president,  the 
ecumenical  patriarch,  Basil  III,  of  Constantinople  (not 
present) ;  representatives  of  the  Constantinopolitan 
and  Alexandrian  patriarchs  were  honorary  members  of 
the  presidium;  besides  these,  there  were  eleven  aids 
to  the  president,  the  secretary,  Professor  B.  V.  Titli- 
nov,  and  his  six  aids. 

In  the  first  business  meeting,  held  in  the  evening, 
the  Sobor  adopted  a  loyal  address  to  the  government, 
in  which,  in  spite  of  the  sincere  and  firm  ring  of  the 
declaration,  the  objectionably  over-fervent,  exagger¬ 
ated  phraseology  of  a  similar  declaration  adopted  by 
the  second  Sobor  was  markedly  omitted.  The  calm 
tone  of  confident  loyalty  graces  it  throughout.  There¬ 
upon  greetings  were  read  from  the  Constantinopolitan 
patriarch  Basil  III,  as  well  as  the  autocephalous  and 
autonomous  parts  of  the  All-Russian  Orthodox  Church. 

Among  the  first  questions  to  which  the  Sobor  turned 
its  attention  was  the  existing  position  of  the  Russian 
church,  in  particular  the  relation  of  the  synodical  to 
the  patriarchal  party.  After  a  long  discussion  of  this 
theme,  a  group  of  forty-two  delegates  made  a  motion 
that  the  Sobor  make  a  final  attempt  to  secure  reunion 
by  sending  a  special  delegation  to  Peter  to  invite  him 
to  take  part  in  the  work.  It  was  then,  however,  that 

8  For  the  names  of  all  these  delegates,  see  The  Messenger ,  No.  6, 
1925,  which  gives  the  official  report  of  the  acts  of  the  Sobor. 


The  Present  Situation 


301 


it  was  found  that  an  unofficial  delegation  (not  of 
members  of  the  Sobor,  but  of  laymen  from  the  various 
synodical  congregations  of  Moscow)  had  already  visited 
Peter  with  the  same  request.  The  delegation  was 
received  by  him  on  October  1,  but  Peter  definitely 
refused  to  cooperate  with  the  Sobor,  giving  the  follow¬ 
ing  reasons  for  his  action:  the  third  Sobor  was  a 
pseudo-Sobor ;  the  synodalists  had  usurped  the  supreme 
authority;  Bishop  Antonin,  in  his  day,  had  no  right 
to  organize  the  Supreme  Administration,  because  he 
was  at  the  time  retired  from  active  service ;  the 
Supreme  Administration  had  uncanonically  retired, 
during  1922,  a  large  number  of  loyal  hierarchs;  the 
married  episcopate  is  uncanonical;  the  Sobor  of  1923 
had  no  right  to  deprive  Tikhon  of  his  office  and  his 
monastic  orders,  and  had  infringed  other  ecclesiastical 
rules  besides.  The  metropolitan  demanded  as  a  con¬ 
dition  of  reunion  that  the  synodical  party  prove  itself 
worthy  of  forgiveness  by  a  public  confession  of  its 
guilt.9  Thus,  on  the  whole,  nothing  new  was  added  to 
Peter’s  previous  objections. 

Thereupon  the  Sobor  passed  its  decision  upon  the 
matter,  expressing,  in  the  first  place,  its  regret  that 
all  its  efforts  to  bring  about  a  reunion  with  the  patri¬ 
archal  party  “have  met  with  a  stubborn  resistance  on 
the  part  of  the  leaders  of  that  group  of  the  church 
which  is  following  the  former  patriarch  Tikhon.”  The 
Sobor  furthermore  stated  that  in  the  majority  of 
cases  where  the  patriarchal  bishops  were  invited  by  the 
synodical  party  to  a  conference,  they  not  only  refused 
but  even  forbade  their  clergy  and  flocks  to  take  any 
part  in  the  Sobor.  Then  it  was  again  suggested  that 
the  underlying  reason  for  such  an  attitude  on  the  part 

0  The  Messenger,  No.  6,  1925,  p.  13. 


302  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

of  the  patriarchal  party  was  not  the  matter  of  the 
alleged  uncanonicity  of  certain  acts  of  the  second 
Sobor,  but  their  championship  of  the  “monarchical 
principle.”  For  its  part,  the  Holy  Sobor  stated  that 
it  regarded  its  means  of  persuasion  as  exhausted,  and 
came  to  the  conclusion  that  all  further  appeals  and 
applications  to  the  Tikhonite  hierarchy  were  in  vain 
so  long  as  they  did  not  abandon  their  political  activity 
and  did  not  return  to  the  Christian  understanding  of 
the  ecclesiastical  labors. 

As  long  as  a  considerable  group  of  the  old-churchmen 
is  not  initiated  into  the  politics  of  their  leaders,  and 
does  not  partake  in  it,  so  long  the  Holy  Sobor  with 
peace  and  love  calls  that  part  of  the  believers  as 
before  to  peace  and  unity,  and  to  a  common  conciliar 
adjudication  of  all  purely  ecclesiastical  differences,  in 
the  spirit  of  the  love  of  Christ.10 

As  the  second  distinct  affirmation  of  the  Sobor  of 
1925,  a  general  approval  of  the  actions  taken  on  the 
part  of  the  reformist  groups  in  the  matter  of  retire¬ 
ment  of  Patriarch  Tikhon  in  1922  was  voted,  and  the 
organization  of  the  Supreme  Ecclesiastical  Administra¬ 
tion  was  pronounced  “legal,”  and  the  Sobor  of  1923 
convoked  by  this  Administration  was  affirmed  likewise 
“canonical  and  legal.”11  But  the  next  paragraph  of  this 
same  pronouncement  speaks  volumes  regarding  the 
changes  of  orientation  which  had  occurred  in  the  lead¬ 
ing  personalities  of  the  synodical  party  since  the  days 
when  the  reformist  groups  were  in  the  saddle;  it  was 
specifically  stated  that 

the  holy  Sobor  regards  it.  as.,  necessary  to  declare  that 
the  Orthodox  church,  headed  by  the  Holy  Synod,  defi- 

10  Ibid.,  No.  6,  1925,  p.  14. 

11  Ibid.,  p.  18. 


The  Present  Situation  303 

nitely  separates  itself  from  such  irresponsible  eccle¬ 
siastical  groups  and  representatives  as  is  Protopresby¬ 
ter  Krasnitsky,  who  a  long  time  ago  left  the  main 
ecclesiastical  channel,  or  Bishop  Antonin,  who  likewise 
for  a  long  period  had  no  relationship  with  the  Holy 
Synod ;  and  the  Holy  Synod  is  responsible  neither  for 
their  representations  or  actions,  nor  for  their  dishonor¬ 
ing  of  the  dignity  of  the  ecclesiastical  orders.12 

Strong  words,  those,  to  be  officially  spoken  about  the 
former  leaders  of  the  reformist  movement! 

Of  very  great  importance  were  the  decisions  regard¬ 
ing  the  canonicity  of  the  married  episcopate:  the  third 
Sobor,  in  the  first  place,  confirmed  the  decisions  of 
the  second  Sobor  in  placing  the  married  episcopate 
on  an  equality  with  the  unmarried,  and  likewise  per¬ 
mitted  the  clerics  to  enter  a  second  marriage;  further¬ 
more,  it  was  affirmed  that  these  matters  were  within 
the  jurisdiction  of  a  local  (national)  Sobor,  and  thus 
no  illegality  whatever  had  been  committed  by  the 
second  Sobor  in  dealing  with  the  matter;  nevertheless, 
“the  Holy  Sobor  at  the  same  time  holds  it  its  duty 
to  present  the  decisions  regarding  this  subject  of  the 
Sobors  of  1923  and  1925  for  the  consideration  of  the  , 
coming  Ecumenical  Council,  and  expresses  its  readi-  ! 
ness  to  submit  to  the  decision  of  that  Council,  in  so 
far  as  that  decision  shall  be  binding  upon  all  Ortho¬ 
dox  churches.”13  This  was  probably  the  most  effec¬ 
tive  way  of  handling  a  matter  which  had  occasioned 
the  party  much  loss  and  criticism,  and  removed  one 
of  the  serious  obstacles  which  stood  in  the  way  of 
reunion  of  the  two  parties  within  the  church.  A 
similar  action  was  taken  regarding  the  adoption  of  the 

12  Ibid.,  No.  6,  p.  18. 

18  Ibid.,  No.  6,  1925,  p.  18. 


304  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

Gregorian  calendar:  the  matter  was  left  to  the  option 
of  the  local  groups,  and  its  final  adjudication  was 
deferred  to  the  decision  of  the  Ecumenical  Council. 
It  must  be  conceded  that  this  wise  moderation  should 
have  carried  conviction  that  the  Holy  Synod  was  actu¬ 
ally  bent  upon  a  policy  of  conciliation  and  of  reestab¬ 
lishment  of  peaceful  relations. 

The  Soviet  government  had  early  adopted  the  policy 
of  recognizing  the  principle  of  self-determination  of 
nations  within  the  limits  of  a  strict  economic  unity, 
and  freely  permitted  the  formation  of  national  units 
into  autonomous  states  or  self-governing  territories. 
This  was  a  wise  policy,  which  yielded  the  government 
added  stability,  because  it  satisfied  the  various  self- 
conscious  national  units  which  were  long  either  in 
revolt  against,  or  restive  under,  the  imperial  policy 
of  russification  of  the  non-Russian  peoples  within 
the  Empire.  Ukrainians  had  strongly  felt  the  injus¬ 
tice  of  this  russification  policy,  and  the  change  adopted 
by  the  Soviet  authorities  had  gone  far  toward  conciliat¬ 
ing  Ukraine  to  the  new  regime. 

The  same  feeling  rankled  in  the  bosoms  of  the 
Ukrainian  patriots  regarding  the  subjugation  of  the 
metropolitanate  of  Kiev  to  the  Moscow  patriarch, 
which  occurred  in  1686.  It  was,  therefore,  perfectly 
natural  that  their  autonomic  aspirations  should  be 
extended  to  the  field  of  ecclesiastical  administration, 
and  the  synodical  party  gained  greatly  by  acknowledg¬ 
ing  the  justice  of  these  aspirations.  In  May,  1925,  the 
Ukrainians  held  a  local  Sobor,  at  which  they  pro¬ 
claimed  their  church  autocephalous,  although  in  com¬ 
munion  with  the  Holy  Synod  of  the  Russian  Orthodox 
Church.  This  action  received  official  confirmation  at 


The  Present  Situation  305 

the  third  Sobor  of  the  Russian  church,  thus  completing 
the  transaction.14 

It  would  be  interesting  to  cast  a  glance  at  the  gen¬ 
eral  ecclesiastical  situation  in  Russia  as  reflected  in 
the  statistics  published  about  the  time  of  the  meeting 
of  the  Sobor,  because  in  spite  of  their  admitted  incom¬ 
pleteness,  they  yet  afford  some  idea  of  the  then  exist¬ 
ing  conditions.  According  to  the  official  governmental 
statistics,15  there  were  in  October,  1925,  in  48  gubernias 
(out  of  the  total  of  87;  the  rest  failed  to  report)  of 
Russia,  34,597  congregations  all  in  all.  Out  of  these, 
28,381,  or  82  per  cent,  belonged  to  the  Russian  Ortho¬ 
dox  Church;  1,647,  or  4.8  per  cent,  to  the  Old-Ritu¬ 
alists;  639,  or  1.8  per  cent  to  the  Evangelicals;  141  or 
0.4  per  cent,  to  the  Roman  Catholic;  267,  or  0.8  per 
cent,  to  the  Lutherans;  673,  or  1.9  per  cent,  to  the 
Baptists;  418,  or  1.2  per  cent,  to  the  Jews;  1,818,  or 
5.3  per  cent,  to  the  Mohammedans;  and  613,  or  1.8 
per  cent,  to  other  unclassified  religious  bodies.16 

It  is  apparent  from  these  figures  that  the  Orthodox 
congregations  have  an  absolute  majority  of  82  per 
cent,  the  rest  comprising  the  remaining  18  per  cent.  As 
for  the  relative  density  of  the  religious  organizations, 
41.6  per  cent  of  the  gubernaias  have  an  average  of  40-50 
congregations  to  each  100,000  inhabitants;  but  in  the 
scantily  settled  Kirghiz  gubernias  there  is  the  minimum 
of  14  congregations  to  the  same  number  of  inhabi¬ 
tants.  In  5  gubernias,  among  100,000  people  there 
exists  the  low  number  of  congregations  ranging  from 
21  to  30:  these  are  the  thinly  populated  regions  of 

14  Ibid.,  No.  6,  1925,  p.  26. 

16  The  Statistical  Review,  published  by  the  People’s  Commissariat 
of  Domestic  Affairs,  July-Sept.,  1925. 

18  Ibid.,  pp.  22-23. 


306  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

Votskaya  Oblast  (23),  Northern  Caucasia  (27),  the 
gubernias  of  Vyatka  (30),  Novonikolaevsk  (29),  and 
Altai  (29).  On  the  other  hand,  the  greatest  number  of 
religious  organizations  in  relation  to  the  same  number 
of  inhabitants  is  found  in  the  gubernias  of  Yaroslavl 
(65),  Arkhangelsk  (68),  Orenburg  (69),  Vladimir  (79), 
and  Murmansk  (223).  The  last  named,  so  markedly 
out  of  proportion  with  the  rest,  is  an  enormous  terri¬ 
tory  with  a  total  of  17,918  inhabitants,  and  the  pro¬ 
portional  number  may  be  misleading,  for  in  reality 
there  exist  only  40  congregations;  but  when  the  index 
is  taken  by  using  100,000  inhabitants  as  a  unit  of 
comparison,  it  yields  the  above-given  figure. 

The  overwhelming  majority  of  the  religious  organi¬ 
zations  (95.6  per  cent)  possess  a  regular  place  of  wor¬ 
ship.  Of  the  Russian  Orthodox,  99  per  cent  conduct 
their  worship  in  church-buildings;  among  the  Moham¬ 
medans,  97.7  per  cent  are  thus  provided  for;  among  the 
Catholics,  92  per  cent;  among  the  Lutherans,  90  per 
cent;  among  the  Jews,  81.2  per  cent;  of  the  Evangel¬ 
icals,  40  per  cent,  for  many  of  them  meet  in  private 
homes;  the  Baptists  have  the  lowest  number,  34.4 
per  cent.17 

Another  interesting  item,  effectively  dealing  with 
the  many  exaggerated  reports  current  abroad  concern¬ 
ing  the  high  percentage  of  former  church  buildings 
converted  to  other — often  unworthy — uses,  is  an  item¬ 
ized  statement  regarding  the  total  number  of  church 
buildings  converted  to  other  uses,  and  the  purpose  to 
which  they  were  devoted:  there  were  1,003  Orthodox 
churches  thus  confiscated,  of  which  114  were  converted 
into  schools,  195  into  club  rooms,  280  used  for  other 
educational  purposes,  79  for  industrial  and  residential 

17  Ibid.,  p.  24. 


The  Present  Situation 


307 


purposes,  298  were  left  unused,  and  6  demolished 
because  they  were  condemned  as  unsafe,  while  31  were 
not  reported  upon.  Of  the  Mohammedan  places  of 
worship,  29  were  confiscated,  and  of  this  number  2 
were  converted  into  club  rooms  and  27  remained 
unused.  Of  the  places  of  worship  belonging  to  the 
Old-Ritualists,  27  were  appropriated,  of  which  5  were 
converted  into  schools,  1  into  another  educational  insti¬ 
tution,  10  used  for  industrial  or  residential  purposes, 
and  11  remained  vacant.  Of  all  the  rest  of  the  com¬ 
munions,  29  places  of  worship  were  confiscated,  of 
which  number  3  were  turned  into  club  rooms,  another 
3  were  devoted  to  other  educational  purposes,  14  to 
industrial  and  residential  purposes,  and  9  remained 
unoccupied.18  It  ought  to  be  remarked,  however,  that 
these  reports  cover  only  29  gubernias,  which  is  only 
one-third  of  the  total;  so  that  the  information  thus 
offered  is  seriously  defective  because  of  its  incom¬ 
pleteness,  and  the  same,  to  a  less  degree,  applies  to  the 
entire  report.  Nevertheless,  that  is  the  only  informa¬ 
tion  of  the  kind  available,  and  in  spite  of  its  admitted 
defects,  affords  a  certain  rough  basis  for  estimating  the 
general  conditions. 

Although  the  patriarchal  party  published  no  statis¬ 
tics  regarding  its  strength,  some  notion  of  the  relative 
numbers  of  the  twTo  factions  of  the  Orthodox  group  may 
be  gathered  from  the  official  statistics  of  the  synodical 
party.  The  itemized  figures  published  in  The  Mes¬ 
senger1  9  report  that  on  October  1,  1925,  that  branch 
of  the  Orthodox  church  was  divided  into  four  autono¬ 
mous  organizations:  the  Georgian  Church,  the  Ukrain¬ 
ian  Church,  the  White  Russian  Church,  and  the  Rus- 

18  Ibid.,  p.  26. 

19  No.  7,  1926. 


308  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

sian  Church  under  the  leadership  of  the  Holy  Synod. 
The  Georgian  Church  had  pronounced  its  autonomy 
in  1917,  having  ignored  the  existing  authorities;  since 
then  it  is  not  in  canonical  relations  with  the  Russian 
Church.  The  Ukrainian  Church  had  pronounced  itself 
autocephalous  on  May  8/21,  1925,  and  this  status 
had  been  confirmed  by  the  third  Local  Sobor  of  the 
Orthodox  Churches  in  the  U.  S.  S.  R.  in  October,  1925. 
The  Ukrainian  Church  is  governed  by  an  Ukrainian 
Sobor  and  its  own  Holy  Synod.  Members  of  the 
Ukrainian  Church  have  the  right  to  attend,  as  dele¬ 
gates,  the  Local  Sobors  of  the  Orthodox  Churches  in  the 
U.  S.  S.  R.,  and  three  representatives  of  the  Ukrainian 
Holy  Synod  are  members  of  the  All-Russian  Holy 
Synod.  The  Ukrainian  autocephalous  church  com¬ 
prises  16  eparchies,  with  33  bishops  and  3,000  con¬ 
gregations. 

The  White  Russian  Church  has  become  autonomous 
since  May,  1924;  it  is  governed  by  a  White  Russian 
Sobor  and  its  own  Holy  Synod;  it  likewise  has  the 
right  to  send  delegates  to  the  All-Russian  Sobors,  and 
its  representatives  have  a  seat  in  the  All-Russian  Holy 
Synod.  It  comprises  4  eparchies,  with  6  bishops  and 
500  parishes. 

Under  the  direct  supervision  and  control  of  the  Holy 
Synod  of  the  Russian  Orthodox  Church  are  the 
churches  abroad,  in  America,  in  France,  in  Germany, 
in  Denmark,  and  in  Athens,  as  well  as  87  eparchies 
within  the  territory  of  the  U.  S.  S.  R.,  which  are  organ¬ 
ized  into  7  district  metropolitanates:  the  Siberian,  the 
Far-Eastern,  the  North  Caucasian,  the  Crimean,  the 
Trans-Caucasian,  the  Ural,  and  the  Northwestern. 
The  total  number  (even  though  based  upon  incomplete 
statistics)  comprising  all  the  bodies  above  mentioned 


The  Present  Situation 


309 


is  reported  as:  108  eparchies;  12,593  parishes;  192 
bishops;  16,540  priests.20  Comparing  these  figures 
with  those  furnished  by  the  government  for  the  entire 
Orthodox  church  in  Russia,  the  synodical  party  would 
comprise  about  43  per  cent  of  the  total  number  of 
parishes;  this  conclusion,  however,  is  likely  to  be  incor¬ 
rect,  for  the  statistics  of  the  synodical  party  are  much 
more  complete,  and  therefore  higher,  than  for  the  rest 
of  the  church.  Hence  it  would  appear  that  to  esti¬ 
mate  the  synodical  strength  at  one-third  of  the  total 
would  likely  be  nearer  the  truth.  Even  at  that  the 
figures,  considering  the  conditions  and  circumstances, 
are  extremely  favorable  to  that  party. 

Returning  now  to  the  course  of  events:  shortly  after 
the  close  of  the  third  Local  Sobor,  the  ecclesiastical 
circles  were  again  agitated  by  a  startling  occurrence, 
namely,  the  arrest  of  the  patriarchal  locum  tenens, 
Metropolitan  Peter.  At  first  newspapers  published 
sensational  articles  regarding  the  alleged  disloyal  con¬ 
duct  of  the  metropolitan;21  thereupon  a  representative 
group  of  perturbed  bishops  of  the  party,  filled  with 
easily  intelligible  anxiety  for  the  welfare  of  the  church, 
which  was  sure  to  suffer  for  the  acts  of  Peter,  visited 
him  and  demanded  that  he  instantly  issue  a  public 
denial  of  the  charge,  in  order  to  avert  a  repetition  of 
reprisals;  the  spokesman  of  the  group,  Bishop  Gregory 
of  Ekaterinburg,  also  suggested  that  a  council  of  all 
the  patriarchal  episcopacy  then  found  in  Moscow  be 
called  to  pass  judgment  upon  the  charges.  Peter  was 
reported  to  have  refused  these  suggestions,  saying  that 
“in  the  last  analysis,  he  alone  is  responsible  for  the 
church,  and  the  council  of  hierarchs  not  only  would 

80  The  Messenger,  No.  7,  1926,  p.  2. 

21  Izvestiya,  Nov.  15,  1925. 


310  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

not  help  him,  but  would  even  be  injurious.”22  Against 
this  Gregory  urged  that  responsibility  for  the  church 
rested  with  the  entire  episcopacy,  whose  united  voice 
was  far  more  important  than  that  of  any  one  individual 
member  of  it. 

Since  Peter  refused  to  heed  the  suggestion  of  the 
bishops,  there  was  held,  on  December  22,  in  the  Don¬ 
skoy  Monastery,  a  meeting  of  the  episcopacy,  which 
adopted  a  resolution  lo  the  laity  and  pronounced  its 
members  independent  of  the  control  of  the  locum 
tenens,  Peter.  They  organized  a  new  government  by 
electing  a  temporary  Supreme  Church  Council  (Soviet), 
composed  of  six  hierarchs,  which  instantly  set  about 
preparing  for  a  new  Sobor,  to  be  held  not  later  than 
1926. 

In  the  meantime,  Peter  was  imprisoned,  and  sub¬ 
jected  to  a  trial.  Unable  to  exercise  the  authority 
delegated  to  him  by  the  deceased  Patriarch  Tikhon, 
he  in  turn  delegated  it  to  Sergei,  the  metropolitan  of 
Nizhni  Novgorod.  The  majority  of  the  patriarchal 
party,  after  a  period  of  hesitation,  rallied  about  Sergei, 
leaving  the  Episcopal  Soviet  with  scanty  support. 
Internecine  war  between  the  two  rival  ecclesiastical 
authorities  soon  broke  out,  and  ran  its  usual  course: 
after  a  great  deal  of  fulmination,  Sergei  forbade  the 
Episcopal  Soviet,  as  a  usurping  organization,  to  exer¬ 
cize  any  ecclesiastical  authority,  and  upon  its  refusal, 
excommunicated  its  members.  Sergei  is  still  regarded 
as  the  chief  leader  of  the  patriarchal  party  and  is 
obeyed  by  the  great  majority  of  its  adherents.  Unfor¬ 
tunately,  he  cannot  remove  to  Moscow  to  centralize 
his  authority  as  the  acknowledged  leader  of  the  party, 
for  the  government  refuses  him  permission  to  leave 

22  Ibid.,  No.  5,  Jan.  1,  1926. 


The  Present  Situation 


311 


Nizhni  Novgorod.23  Thus,  to  a  very  large  extent,  each 
bishop  is  left  to  himself  to  govern  his  own  diocese  in 
accordance  with  the  canons  and  to  the  best  of  his 
knowledge  and  ability,  without  much  direction  from 
any  central  supreme  authority. 

When  a  group  of  Americans  visited  Metropolitan 
Sergei  in  August,  1926,  to  ask  his  judgment  regarding 
the  Russian  church  situation,  he  laid  stress  on  the 
point  that  differences  between  the  patriarchal  and 
synodical  parties  had  arisen  from  the  opposite  interpre¬ 
tation  of  the  Sobor  of  1923,  which  he  pronounced  irreg¬ 
ular,  uncanonically  called,  packed  by  forced  elections, 
and  its  delegates  committed  against  Tikhon  in 
advance.  “We  regard  the  adherents  of  the  synodical 
party  as  rebels,77  he  affirmed,  “although  their  offense 
is  not  in  the  theological  sphere,  but  in  the  canonical.” 
Nevertheless,  Sergei  was  rather  hopeful  that  a  reunion 
might  be  effected.  He  also  asserted  that  the  church 
was  free  to  worship. 

During  the  summer  of  1926,  Metropolitan  Sergei, 
in  reply  to  a  governmental  demand  for  specification  of | 
the  patriarchal  party’s  attitude,  issued  an  official 
declaration,  in  which  he  most  solemnly  declared  that 
the  church  he  represented  was  non-political,  and  “injso 
far  as  the  recognition  of  the  present  government  was 
concerned,  the  Tikhonite  church  was  absolutely  loyal.” 
He  furthermore  reminded  the  government  of  the  guar¬ 
antee  of  religious  as  well  as  anti-religious  freedom  of 
propaganda,  and  asked  that  this  particular  provision  of 
the  constitution  be  enforced,  and  the  church  given  full 
freedom  to  carry  on  its  normal  work.  Finally,  the 

23  Metropolitan  Sergei,  since  the  time  of  the  writing  of  this 
chapter,  was  arrested;  Metropolitan  Joseph  of  Nizhni  Novgorod,  and 
the  Archbishops  Cornelius  of  Ekaterinburg  and  Thaddeus  of  Astrak¬ 
han,  who  in  turn  succeeded  him,  suffered  a  similar  fate. 


312  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

metropolitan  declared  that  the  emigre  clergy  was  not 
considered  a  part  of  the  Russian  church,  and  therefore 
he  had  no  jurisdiction  over  it.  With  this  kind  of 
spirit  and  attitude  on  the  part  of  the  present  leaders 
of  the  patriarchal  party,  a  change  in  the  treatment  of 
it  by  the  government  may  ultimately  be  hoped  for. 
Nevertheless,  it  is  likely  to  be  a  slow  process. 

In  the  meantime,  Metropolitan  Peter  remained  in 
prison;  his  trial  was  slow,  and  the  proceedings  were 
not  published.  In  an  interview  with  Smidovich 
(on  August  18,  1926),  who  is  in  charge  of  the  depart¬ 
ment  of  ecclesiastical  affairs,  I  asked  this  high  official 
what  the  charges  against  Metropolitan  Peter  were,  and 
what  the  prosecution  had  proven.  Smidovich  replied 
that  the  government  agents  had  gathered  their  proofs 
against  Peter  abroad  even  before  he  was  arrested,  and 
that  the  case  against  him  was  so  overwhelming  that 
he  had  already  confessed  to  having  been  in  communica¬ 
tion  with  the  monarchical  organizations  abroad,  and 
that  he  had  sent  his  acknowledgment,  together  with 
his  blessings,  to  one  of  the  rival  candidates  for  the 
Russian  throne,  the  Grand  Duke  Nicholas  Nicholaie- 
vich;  moreover,  Peter  had  signed  his  confession,  and 
appended  to  it  a  petition  professing  his  repentance  and 
begging  for  mercy.  My  request  for  the  court  records 
of  the  trial,  or  an  official  statement  of  it,  was  answered 
by  Smidovich  to  the  effect  that  all  documents  relative 
to  the  trial  were  to  be  published  in  the  papers  in  the 
near  future.  But  hitherto  I  have  not  seen  these  con¬ 
firmations,  and  therefore  no  judgment  in  the  case  can 
be  passed.  If  the  statements  should  be  proven  true, 
one  could  entertain  but  little  sympathy  with  the  leader¬ 
ship  of  the  patriarchal  party;  but  on  the  other  hand, 
without  impugning  Smidovich’s  veracity  or  good  faith, 


The  Present  Situation 


313 


anyone  who  has  to  do  with  Russian  affairs  will  soon 
learn  to  investigate  all  the  sources  available  before 
accepting  any  oral  statements,  no  matter  what  their 
origin.24 

The  patriarchal  party  is  not  wholly  free:  its 
members  do  not  possess  the  freedom  of  organization 
which  their  opponents  enjoy,  for  they  do  not  have  the 
right  to  organize  themselves  into  eparchial  units  as 
the  synodical  church  has;  moreover,  the  hierarchs  of 
that  party  are  often  hampered  in  their  movements  and 
are  never  wholly  free  from  the  danger  of  imprisonment.  \ 
Thus  Metropolitan  Sergei  is  not  permitted  to  leave 
Nizhni  Novgorod,  as  Metropolitan  Agathangel  had 
been  prevented  from  coming  to  Moscow  in  1922  when 
he  was  summoned  by  Tikhon  to  assume  the  duties  of  4 
patriarchal  substitute.  In  the  summer  of  1926,  about 
ten  bishops  belonging  to  the  patriarchal  party  were 
ordered  out  of  Moscow,  simply  because  the  authorities 
were  suspicious  of  them.  It  is  generally  known  that  the 
official  representatives  of  the  patriarchal  party  regard 
it  as  perilous  to  speak  freely  with  any  foreigner  for 
fear  that  it  may  arouse  the  suspicions  of  the  govern¬ 
ment  and  lead  to  unpleasant  consequences,  and  even 
to  forcible  measures.  I  have  been  repeatedly  refused 
audience  with  members  of  this  group,  solely  because 
they  feared  to  speak  with  a  foreigner.  In  this  respect, 
the  entire  party  is  still  resting  under  the  heavy  incubus 
of  mistrust  and  suspicion,  and  possibly  even  ill  will, 
which  is  a  heritage  from  the  days  when  the  church 
was  in  active  opposition  to  the  Soviet  regime.  Doubt¬ 
less  a  long  time  must  elapse  and  repeated  proofs  of 
loyalty  and  sincerity  on  the  part  of  the  party  must 
be  proffered  before  these  conditions  may  be  expected 

24  Since  then,  Metropolitan  Peter  has  been  exiled  to  Siberia. 


314  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 


to  change  much.  It  may  be  remarked,  in  this  connec¬ 
tion,  that  the  patriarchal  party  shares  in  this  respect 
the  sad  fate  of  all  the  surviving  members  of  the  former 
bourgeois  or  ruling  classes,  who  cannot  be  said  to  be 
treated  with  justice,  or  even  fairness.  The  Soviet 
government  represents  the  proletarian  dictatorship, 
and  the  Marxian  gospel  preaches  class  hatred,  thus 
inducing  class  strife  and  injustice.  The  sorry  surviv¬ 
ing  wrecks  of  the  former  middle  and  upper  classes, 
which  did  not  succeed  in  passing  for  proletari¬ 
ans,  or  which  were  refused  such  saving  transformatory 
process  by  the  powers  that  be,  suffer  injustice  in  many 
cases  amounting  to  persecution.  The  best  that  can  be 
said  about  the  whole  matter  is  that  they  comprise  the 
ten  per  cent  of  the  population  which  formerly 
oppressed  and  exploited  the  remaining  ninety  per  cent 
of  the  downtrodden  rural  or  industrial  population,  and 
that  they  suffer  the  same  treatment  at  the  hands  of 
the  victorious  majority  which  formerly  was  meted  out 
to  them.  Conditions,  of  course,  have  improved,  for  it 
is  now  only  ten  per  cent  of  the  population  which  is 
oppressed  by  the  ninety,  whose  lot  has  been  correspond¬ 
ingly  improved ;  but  there  is  no  pretense  of  mercy  about 
the  pitiless  process,  and  the  worst  that  can  be  said 
against  the  Soviet  system  is  that  the  oppression  against 
which  its  protagonists  had  revolted  is  now  practiced 
by  them  upon  their  former  oppressors.  Unfortunately, 
two  wrongs  never  make  a  right. 

The  synodical  party,  on  the  other  hand,  possesses 
fhe  confidence  of  the  government,  and  therefore  a 
degree  of  freedom  which  disposes  it  to  a  loyal  accept¬ 
ance  of  the  new  conditions.  The  representatives  of 
high  official  rank  with  whom  I  have  had  personal  con¬ 
ferences  earnestly  urged  that  the  new  order  is  con- 


The  Present  Situation 


315 


ducive  to  a  truer  religious  liberty  than  the  former 
order  was,  which  heaped  unjust  prerogatives  and 
privileges  on  the  church,  but  constrained  it  to  do  its 
bidding  in  every  nefarious  purpose  of  its  own.  This 
party  affirms  that  there  has  been  no  overt  persecution 
of  the  church,  the  various  penal  measures  carried  out 
against  it  having  been  called  out  by  the  disloyal  atti¬ 
tude  and  conduct  of  the  latter.  The  leaders  further 
zealously  affirm  that  the  synodical  party  does  not  differ 
from  the  patriarchal  on  questions  of  dogma  or  canons, 
but  only  in  the  interpretations  of  the  Sobor  of  1923. 

Another  advantage  which  the  synodical  party  pos¬ 
sesses  over  the  patriarchal  *  lies  in  the  recognition 
afforded  it  by  the  patriarchates  of  Constantinople, 
Alexandria,  and  Jerusalem.  The  Holy  Synod  was 
requested  to  send  its  representatives  to  the  Eighth 
Ecumenical  Council,  which  after  more  than  eleven 
centuries’  silence  is  again  to  speak  authoritatively  upon 
the  important  adjustments  which  the  new  age  impera¬ 
tively  demands  of  the  Eastern  churches.  Thus  the 
synodical  party  possesses  at  least  the  initial  advantage 
of  representing  officially  the  Russian  Orthodox  Church 
at  this  enormously  important  gathering. 

The  synodical  party  shows  a  deeper  understanding^ 
of  the  necessity  of  adapting  the  ancient  forms  and 
usages  through  which  Russian  Christianity  expressed 
its  piety  from  time  immemorial  to  the  new  conditions 
and  demands,  and  therefore  possesses  a  greater  sur¬ 
vival  power,  or  even  life-energy,  than  the  patriarchal 
party,  which  is  perforce  wedded  to  the  traditional 
usages  and  dogmas.  There  is  likewise  a  greater  theo¬ 
logical  elasticity  in  the  synodical  group,  even  though 
the  party  officially  has  not  embraced  any  tenets  at  var¬ 
iance  with  Orthodoxy;  besides,  there  is  a  feeling  of  free- 


316  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

dom  regarding  the  liturgical  services,  which  in  places 
are  performed  without  their  former  traditional  rigidity, 
but  are  experimented  with  in  the  direction  of  greater 
freedom  and  what  may  be  spoken  of  as  Protestantiza- 
tion,  using  the  word  in  its  best  sense.  As  an  illustra¬ 
tion  of  this  tendency,  I  may  relate  my  own  observations 
of  the  work  of  one  of  the  Moscow  parish  representa¬ 
tives  of  the  synodical  party,  a  zealous  priest,  whose 
church  is  situated  on  the  Lyubyansky  Square  in  the 
very  heart  of  the  city.  I  visited  him  in  his  home, 
and  found  him  a  deeply  consecrated,  spiritual- 
minded  Christian,  who  drew  much  of  his  inspiration 
from  such  English  religious  literature  as  Drummond’s 
Greatest  Thing  in  the  World.  I  was  likewise  sur¬ 
prised  at  the  emphasis  he  placed  upon  Biblical  study 
and  preaching,  for  I  was  somewhat  unaccustomed  to 
associate  a  Russian  priest  with  such  thoroughly  “evan¬ 
gelical”  ideas.  I  have  attended  his  church  services 
several  times  and,  although  I  do  not  pretend  to  be 
able  to  detect  every  variation  in  his  service  from  the 
traditional  liturgical  services,  I  observed  at  least  some 
of  the  more  striking  deviations.  The  holy  doors  of  the 
ikonostasis  were  open  throughout  the  service,  all 
prayers  were  in  Russian,  instead  of  Church-Slavonic, 
and  some  were  not  chanted.  The  chief  difference, 
and  a  very  notable  one,  came  at  the  time  of  the 
sermon:  an  elderly  layman  went  up  to  the  holy  doors 
with  his  own  Bible  in  hand,  and  read  in  Russian  a 
portion  of  Paul’s  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  deal¬ 
ing  with  the  Apostle’s  expostulations  about  their  divi¬ 
sions.  The  priest  then  came  forward  and  delivered  a 
twenty-minute  sermon — and  a  very  effective  exhorta¬ 
tion  it  was — pointing  out  the  unhappy  effect  of  the 
divisions  within  the  Russian  church,  for  there,  too, 


The  Present  Situation 


317 


many  say:  “I  am  Peter’s”  ( i.e .  belong  to  the  party  of 
Metropolitan  Peter),  and  others:  “I  am  of  the 
synodical  party.”  The  preacher  exhorted  his  hearers  to 
eschew  all  such  divisive  slogans,  and  to  say:  “I  belong 
to  Christ!”  Even  this  one  sermon  was  somewhat  of 
an  innovation  in  the  Russian  service;  but  this  good 
priest  was  not  satisfied  with  stopping  with  one.  After 
the  sermon  based  on  the  Apostle,  the  deacon  stepped 
to  the  lactern  and  read  from  the  gospels,  whereupon 
the  priest  again  came  out  and  gave  another  sermon, 
full  of  evangelical  zeal  and  real  religious  fervor  as 
well  as  of  spiritual  insight.  On  the  whole,  these  two 
sermons  were  remarkable  productions,  and  consider¬ 
ing  how  comparatively  rare  homiletical  exercises  were 
in  the  Orthodox  service,  this  must  be  hailed  as  a  dis¬ 
tinct  advance  upon  the  previous  practice.  Attending 
the  evening  services,  I  learned  that  they  consisted 
largely  of  expository  Biblical  preaching,  with  hardly 
any  liturgical  accompaniment,  and  although  it  is  a 
mere  detail  of  no  particular  consequence,  yet  it  was  of 
interest  to  note  that  the  Western  customs  were  followed 
even  to  the  extent  of  carrying  chairs  and  benches  into 
the  church,  and  seating  the  congregation  during  the 
preaching  service. 

This  priest  also  organized  the  members  of  his 
congregation  into  unions  and  cooperative  societies,  and 
on  the  whole  evinced  a  remarkable  interest  and  zeal 
in  caring  for  the  social  and  economic  conditions  affect¬ 
ing  his  people.  All  of  this  is  quite  unusual  in  an  old- 
time  parish,  and  augurs  well  for  the  future  of  the 
new  organization.  His  parish  is  a  vital  factor  in  the 
lives  of  his  people,  and  performs  a  real  service  for 
them.  As  he  told  me,  “We  are  poor  as  our  people 
are  poor;  but  we  have  gained  their  love.” 


318  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

The  former  ecclesiastical  exclusiveness  has  likewise 
disappeared  from  the  synodical  party :  I,  a  Protestant, 
have  been  received  with  the  utmost  brotherly  cor¬ 
diality,  by  the  rank  and  file,  as  well  as  by  priests 
and  the  metropolitans.  In  one  of  the  sermons  I  heard 
the  matter  discussed,  and  the  preacher  most  positively 
affirmed  that  no  spiritual  division  exists  between  the 
Orthodox  and  the  sectarians,  the  Roman  Catholics,  or 
the  Protestants,  provided  that  the  inner  bond  of 
spiritual  unity  is  present.  That  is  another  hopeful 
sign.  Thus,  on  the  whole,  the  church  has  found 
its  proper  mission,  and  there  is  no  cause  to  despair 
over  it. 

Finally,  a  word  ought  to  be  said  regarding  the  present 
situation  of  the  “sectarians”  and  their  attitude  toward 
the  new  conditions  brought  about  by  the  October 
Revolution.  It  must  be  remembered  that  there  are, 
according  to  their  own  estimate,  even  though  it  does 
not  represent  actual  official  statistics,  some  fifteen 
million  sectarians  in  Russia.  Some  of  them  have  cen¬ 
turies  of  tradition  and  history  back  of  them;  others 
are  of  a  comparatively  recent  origin.  None  of  them 
enjoyed  full  religious  liberty  under  the  tsar,  while  a 
few  of  their  communions  were  occasionally  cruelly 
persecuted.  Thus,  just  like  the  workers  and  the  peas¬ 
ants,  by  the  overthrow  of  the  tsarist  regime  they  had 
“nothing  to  lose  but  their  chains,”  while  the  new  con¬ 
ditions  actually  brought  them  religious  liberty  for  the 
first  time.  Moreover,  although  nominally  the  same 
laws  which  affected  the  Orthodox  church  had  validity 
for  them,  the  government  is  credited  as  having  been 
much  more  lenient  toward  them  in  the  execution  of 
those  laws  than  it  was  toward  the  formerly  dominant, 
reigning  church.  Therefore,  the  sectarians  are  unani- 


The  Present  Situation 


319 


mous  in  their  affirmation  that  their  conditions  were 
greatly  improved  by  the  October  Revolution.  I  have 
been  present  at  a  conference  with  the  leaders  of  the 
chief  sectarian  communions  of  Moscow,  and  have  per¬ 
sonally  heard  them  bear  such  testimony,  some  of  the 
speakers  even  waxing  quite  eulogistic. 

The  most  numerous  among  these  non-Orthodox 
groups,  who  by  a  curious  psychological  twist  still  per¬ 
sist  in  thinking  and  speaking  of  themselves  as  “sec¬ 
tarians”  in  distinction  from  “the  church,”  although 
legally  the  distinction  no  longer  exists,  are  the  Molo- 
kane,  or  as  they  prefer  to  call  themselves,  the  Spiritual 
Christians.  They  have  existed,  in  spite  of  all  the 
oppression  and  persecution,  for  the  last  hundred  and 
fifty  years,  and  they  differed  most  radically  from  the 
Orthodox  because  they  rejected  all  outward  ceremonies 
and  all  sacraments,  worshiping  God  “in  spirit  and  in 
truth.”  During  the  forties  of  the  nineteenth  century 
they  suffered  most  serious  persecution,  and  were  exiled 
into  Caucasus  and  Siberia;  yet,  in  spite  of  that,  they 
increased  their  numbers  to  a  million.  Then,  however, 
a  period  of  decline  set  in,  during  which  their  best  ele¬ 
ments  were  won  over  by  the  Baptists.  But  since  the 
opening  of  the  new  century,  the  Spiritual  Christians 
have  experienced  a  revival,  which  was  evidenced  by  a 
steady  growth.  At  present,  they  number  about  two 
millions. 

The  next  communion  to  rank  with  the  Molokane  is 
the  Baptist  body,  which  totals  about  one  and  a  half 
millions.  Russian  Baptists  differ  markedly  from  the 
American  Baptists,  because  their  historical  origins  were 
native.  The  movement  was  originally  organized  by  a 
certain  Pavlov,  in  Tiflis,  Caucasus,  among  the 
Molokane  settled  there,  and  drew  its  membership 


320  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

largely  from  the  latter  communion,  which  was  then 
temporarily  in  a  state  of  decline;  thus  its  antecedents 
were  native,  and  of  a  kind  which  has  no  parallel  in  the 
history  of  the  Western  Baptists.  The  Stundist  move¬ 
ment,  which  became  so  prominent  in  the  Ukraine  and 
Southern  Russia,  also  merged  with  the  Baptists,  and 
brought  in  its  own  spiritual  heritage.  A  similar  move¬ 
ment,  under  the  leadership  of  Lord  Redstock,  emerged 
in  St.  Petersburg  and  the  North,  and  assumed  the  name 
of  the  Evangelical  Christians.  These  three  strains 
unite  now  under  the  common  designation  of  Baptists. 
They  reject  the  use  of  weapons,  but  are  willing  to 
accept  other  forms  of  military  service,  such  as  hospital 
duty  or  any  other  non-combatants’  service.  They  are 
very  energetic  under  the  new  conditions,  publishing  a 
journal,  and  at  present  opening  a  theological  school 
for  the  training  of  their  ministry. 

Dukhobors,  who  number  about  three  hundred  thou¬ 
sand,  are  absolute  pacifists,  and  organize  themselves 
into  religious  committee.  On  account  of  the  latter 
feature,  they  receive  special  consideration  by  the  gov¬ 
ernment,  which  even  went  so  far  as  to  try  to  induce 
the  Dukhobors  of  Canada  to  return  to  Russia,  in 
order  to  help  spread  the  communistic  ideal. 

Besides  these,  there  are  the  Seventh  Day  Adventists, 
Mennonites,  Old  Israelites,  New  Israelites,  Malevantsi, 
Tolstoyans,  and  even  a  rather  new  sect  of  Abstainers, 
who  reject  the  use  of  intoxicating  liquors,  not  to  men¬ 
tion  such  sects  as  Skoptsy,  Beguni,  etc. 

The  rate  at  which  the  sectarians  grow  is  alarming 
to  the  Orthodox  church,  for  their  growth,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  is  quite  remarkable.  Some  idea  of  the  rate  of 
increase  may  be  gained  from  the  statistics  for  the 
gubernia  of  Kiev,  in  the  year  1923:  the  Baptists 


The  Present  Situation 


321 


increased  from  eleven  congregations  to  fifteen,  the 
Spiritual  Christians  from  fifty-nine  to  one  hundred  and 
twenty-eight,  the  Adventists  from  one  to  twenty-four, 
and  the  Malevantsi  from  three  to  twenty-six.23 

Hence  it  is  rather  easy  to  understand  why  the  Com¬ 
munist  leaders  look  with  a  certain  degree  of  favor 
upon  the  sectarians,  and  why  the  sectarians,  on  the 
other  hand,  are  so  solidly  supporting  the  new  regime. 
The  Thirteenth  Congress  of  the  Russian  Communist 
Party  adopted  the  following  resolution : 

We  must  pay  the  greatest  attention  to  the  sectarians, 
who  were  generally  persecuted  under  the  tsar,  and 
some  of  whom  are  very  active.  By  approaching  them 
wisely,  we  must  secure  their  most  energetic  and 
cultured  elements  for  our  own  task.  In  view  of  the 
large  number  of  the  sectarians,  this  work  is  of  great 
importance.  The  problem  must  be  solved  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  local  conditions. 

The  same  favorable  opinion  was  shared  by  Rikov, 
Bukharin,  Kalinin,  and  Smidovich,  as  well  as  by  Lenin. 
The  fact  that  many  sectarians  share  the  communistic 
ideal  with  the  anti-religiously  motivated  Communist 
Party  brings  them  together  in  attempting  to  work  for 
that  element  of  their  aspirations  which  they  possess 
in  common.  No  wonder  that  one  of  these  sectarian 
leaders  wrote  me  enthusiastically:  “I  consider  the 
Soviet  government  the  best  regime,  particularly 
because  it  is  striving  to  realize  communism,  which  is 
also  the  ideal  of  all  sectarians-communists.” 

Thus  adding  the  forces  of  the  synodical  party  of  the 
Orthodox  church  to  the  strength  of  the  sectarians, 
the  total  number  of  those  who  quite  loyally  accept 

28  The  Messenger  of  the  Holy  Synod,  No.  2,  1925,  p.  22. 


322  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

the  new  regime  and  regard  it  as  having  granted  them 
genuine  religious  freedom  amounts  to  some  forty-five 
or  fifty  millions,  even  though  it  would  be  grossly  unfair 
to  conclude  that  the  remaining  sixty-five  millions — 
more  or  less — are  either  disloyal  or  openly  anti-govern¬ 
mental:  the  simple  truth  is  that  too  many  causes  con¬ 
spire  to  imbue  the  authorities  with  suspicion  and  even 
ill  will  against  them. 


CHAPTER  XII 


CONCLUSION 

The  question  is  often  raised  as  to  the  future  of  the 
Russian  church ;  some  timorous  and  fearful  souls  affect 
anxiety  regarding  the  very  possibility  of  its  survival, 
or  work  themselves  into  a  high  state  of  excitement 
about  the  “annihilating”  measures  of  the  atheistic 
propaganda.  This  view  of  the  speedy  demise  of  Rus¬ 
sian  Christianity  is  likewise  zealously  upheld  by  those 
who  would  find  a  personal  pleasure  in  attending  its 
funeral;  in  a  personal  interview  with  the  president 
of  the  Atheist  Society,  Spitzberg  of  Moscow,  this 
zealous  apostle  of  atheism  gravely  assured  me  that 
within  ten  years  Christianity  will  have  disappeared 
from  Russia,  not  because  of  any  governmental  perse¬ 
cution,  but  because  the  rising  generation  will  have  been 
brought  up  in  knowledge  and  enlightment,  and  many 
of  the  older  folks  will  have  passed  away. 

Without  assuming  to  play  the  role  of  a  prophet,  the 
question  of  the  survival  of  Christianity  in  Russia  may 
be  answered  by  linking  it  with  essentially  the  same 
problem  confronting  Christianity  in  any  other  coun¬ 
try;  the  Russian  crisis  is  only  an  acuter  stage  of  the 
situation  prevailing  everywhere  else.  The  forces  which 
confront  each  other  there  may  be  cruder  than  else¬ 
where  :  the  spirit  of  militant  atheism  finds  greater  sup¬ 
port  in  Russia  than  in  other  countries,  but  the  relig¬ 
ious  level  of  Russian  Christianity  is  likewise  lower 

323 


324  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

than  in  some  other  lands.  But  essentially  Christianity 
is  everywhere  facing  the  same  problem:  it  finds  itself, 
for  the  first  time  in  its  history,  in  a  scientific-minded 
world.  This  scientific  spirit  may  assume  the  rather 
crude  form  of  militant  materialistic  monism,  or  some 
more  refined  expression  with  which  Western  Europe 
and  America  are  acquainted:  but  fundamentally  the 
assumption  of  an  ordered  universe  made  by  these 
views  in  which  law,  and  not  a  miraculous,  supernatural 
caprice,  is  dominant,  more  and  more  differentiates  the 
modern  scientific  attitude  from  the  pre-scientific  super¬ 
naturalism  which  was  current  throughout  the  previous 
epochs  of  Christian  history.  Official  Christendom  is 
still  largely  steeped  in  this  pre-scientific  ideology, 
through  which  it  expresses  its  creed,  and  thereby  puts 
itself  into  increasingly  disharmonious  relation  with  the 
modern  world-view.  Hence  the  deeper  problem  which 
Christianity  is  facing  is  whether  the  pre-scientific  type 
which  characterizes  some  nine-tenths  of  official  Chris¬ 
tendom  shall  be  able  to  survive  anywhere,  not  only 
in  Russia.  It  seems  increasingly  clear  that  it  cannot. 
Therefore,  if  the  question  whether  Russian  Christianity 
shall  be  able  to  survive  implies  whether  its  present 
ecclesiastical  organization  with  its  ancient  doctrinal 
formulation  and  cultus  can  preserve  its  exact  identity 
unchanged,  the  answer  is  not  difficult:  as  long  as  the 
general  ignorance  hitherto  so  characteristic  of  the  Rus¬ 
sian  peasant  prevails,  no  great  modification  in  his 
religious  habits  may  be  expected.  If,  however,  the  gov¬ 
ernment  succeeds  in  organizing  its  educational  system 
in  a  thoroughgoing  manner,  and  if  the  younger 
generation  quite  generally  shares  the  educational  privi¬ 
leges  thus  provided,  there  is  no  doubt  that  this  will 
imply  a  considerable  change  in  the  religious  thinking 


Conclusion  325 

of  the  nation.  The  situation  very  likely  will  then  be 
similar  to  that  in  France. 

On  the  other  hand,  no  one  need  be  any  more  unduly 
alarmed  about  the  survival  value  of  essential  religion, 
the  Jesus  way  of  life,  in  Russia  than  in  the  rest  of 
the  world.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  genuine  Christianity 
has  never  had  a  better  chance  to  manifest  its  intrinsic 
worth  in  the  concrete,  practical  conditions  of  Russian 
life  than  just  now,  when  it  has  at  last  been  freed  from 
its  forced  partnership  with  its  former  tsarist  ally,  by 
whom  it  was  kept  in  an  unworthy  spiritual  bondage 
at  the  price  of  material  privileges.  The  new  conditions 
have  made  it  possible  for  genuine  religion  to  function 
as  a  transforming  force.  If  Russian  Christianity  con¬ 
ceives  its  mission  in  terms  of  a  character-building, 
energizing  spiritual  force,  which  transforms  human 
lives  from  sordid  self-seeking  to  altruistic  service  of 
others — elements,  which,  by  the  way,  are  not  uncom¬ 
mon  in  the  “atheistic”  Russian  communism,  which 
nevertheless  thinks  of  itself  as  irreligious — and  if  with¬ 
out  any  interference  with  the  proper  sphere  of  science, 
it  adds  to  the  scientific  attitude  a  passion  for  a  nobler 
character  and  a  better  social  order,  and  a  poetic  inter¬ 
pretation  of  the  spiritual  intuitions  of  the  human  race, 
no  one  needs  to  be  in  anxiety  about  its  survival.  But 
it  is  as  frankly  a  matter  of  the  “survival  of  the  fittest” 
in  the  realm  of  religion  as  it  is  in  the  realm  of  physical 
organisms.  Fortunately,  this  new  spirit  is  stirring 
within  the  Russian  church  as  well  as  elsewhere,  in 
spite  of  the  fact  that  the  ancient  good  made  uncouth 
by  time  is  still  its  very  formidable  enemy.  The  final 
outcome  of  the  struggle  of  the  two  forces  within  the 
Christian  church  is  by  no  means  clear:  to  assume  that 
the  new’  spirit  must  necessarily  win  would  imply  an 


326  Church  and  the  Russian  Revolution 

undue  and  as  yet  unwarranted  optimism,  which  does 
not  rest  its  case  upon  a  demonstrable  trend  of  events. 
Any  adequate  knowledge  of  the  prevailing  situation 
is  certain  to  dissipate  such  undervaluation  of  the 
strength  of  the  traditional  official  Christian  ideology. 
Whatever  the  ultimate  outcome  may  be,  the  Russian 
situation  is  certain  to  exert  its  influence  either  for 
good  or  for  evil,  for  it  is  a  part  of  the  whole.  It  is  for 
the  rest  of  Christendom  to  help  it  choose  wisely. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


General  Political  History: 

Alexinski,  G.:  Modern  Russia,  London,  1913. 

Kerenski,  A.  F.:  The  Prelude  of  Bolshevism,  London,  1919. 

Kornilov,  A.:  Modern  Russian  History,  2  vols.,  London,  1916. 

Mavor,  J.:  An  Economic  History  of  Russia,  2  vols.,  London,  1914. 

Milyukov,  P.  N.:  Istoriya  Vtoroy  Revolyutsii  (A  History  of  the 
Second  Russian  Revolution),  Part  I,  Sofia,  1924.  (In  Russian.) 

Olgin,  I.:  The  Soul  of  the  Russian  Revolution,  New  York,  1917. 

Pares,  Bernard:  A  History  of  Russia,  New  York,  1926. 

Pasvolski,  L.:  The  Economics  of  Communism,  New  York,  1921. 

Russia  Today.  Official  Report  of  the  British  Trade  Union  Delega¬ 
tion,  New  York,  1925. 

Sack,  A.  J.:  The  Birth  of  the  Russian  Democracy,  New  York,  1918. 

Srom,  Josef:  Sovetske  Rusko  (Soviet  Russia),  Praha,  1924.  (In 
Bohemian.) 

Vassili,  Count  Paul:  Behind  the  Veil  at  the  Russian  Court,  London, 
1914. 

Za  Pet  Let;  1917-1922  (During  Five  Years;  1917-1922.)  Moscow, 
1922.  (In  Russian.) 

Cultural  and  Social  History  of  Russia: 

Berdyaev,  N.:  Mirosozertsanie  Dostoevskago  (Dostoevsky’s  World- 
View),  Prague,  1923.  (In  Russian.) 

Berdyaev,  N.:  Smysl  Istorii  (The  Meaning  of  History),  Berlin,  1923. 
(In  Russian.) 

Haase,  F.:  Die  Religiose  Psyche  des  Russisches  Volkes,  Leipzig,  1921. 

Haase,  F.:  Russische  Kirche  und  Socialismus,  Leipzig,  1922. 

Masaryk,  T.  G.:  The  Spirit  of  Russia,  2  vols.,  London,  1919. 

Milyukov,  P.  N.:  Essais  sur  l’histoire  de  la  civilization  russe,  tr.  du 
Russe  par  P.  Dramas  et  D.  Soskice,  Paris,  1901. 

Miihlestein,  Hans :  Russland  und  die  Psychomachie  Europas, 
Miinchen,  1925. 

Notzel-Barwinskyj :  Die  Slawische  Volkseele,  Jena,  1916. 

Notzel,  Karl:  Die  Grundlagen  des  geistigen  Russlands,  Leipzig,  1923. 

Russian  Church  History: 

Bonwetsch,  N.:  Kirchengeschichte  Russlands,  Leipzig,  1923. 

Book  of  Rules,  The,  Moscow,  1911.  (In  Church-Slavonic.) 

327 


328  Bibliography 

Brikhnichev,  Iona:  Patriarkh  Tikhon  i  ego  Tserkov  (Patriarch 
Tikhon  and  his  Church).  (Pamphlet,  in  Russian.) 

Bubnoff-Ehrenberg :  Ostliches  Christentum:  Dokumente,  2  Bande, 
Miinchen. 

Conybeare,  Fred  C.:  Russian  Dissenters,  Cambridge,  Mass.,  1921. 

Deyaniya  Drugago  Vserossiiskago  Pomestnago  Sobora  1923  goda 
(Acts  of  the  Second  All-Russian  Local  Sobor,  1923),  Moscow. 

D’Herbigni,  M.:  Tserkovnaya  Zhizn  v  Moskve  (The  Ecclesiastical 
Life  in  Moscow),  trans.  from  the  French  by  I.  F.  Nazhivin, 
Paris,  1926. 

Fioletov,  N.  N.:  Tserkov  i  Gosudarstvo  po  sovetskomu  pravu  (The 
Church  and  the  Government  according  to  the  Soviet  Legisla¬ 
tion),  Moscow,  1924.  (In  Russian.) 

Gidulyanov,  P.  V.:  Otdelenie  Tserkvi  ot  Gosudarstva  (Separation  of 
the  Church  from  the  Government),  Moscow,  1926.  (In  Russian.) 

Kandidov,  B.  P.:  Tserkov  i  1905  god  (The  Church  and  the  Year 
1905),  Moscow.  (In  Russian.) 

Krasikov:  Na  Tserkovnom  Fronte  (1918-1923).  (On  the  Church  Front 
[1918-1923]),  Moscow,  1923.  (In  Russian.) 

Lowrie,  Donald  A.:  The  Light  of  Russia,  Prague,  1923. 

Lukin,  N.:  Revolyutsiya  i  Tserkov  (Revolution  and  the  Church), 
Moscow,  1923.  (Pamphlet,  in  Russian.) 

McCullagh,  F. :  The  Bolshevist  Persecution  of  Religion,  London,  1924. 

Otdelenie  Tserkvi  ot  Gosudarstva  i  Shkoly  ot  Tserkvi  (Separation  of 
the  Church  from  the  State  and  the  School  from  the  Church), 
Kharkov,  1926.  (In  Russian.) 

Pobedonostsev,  K.  P.:  Reflections  of  a  Russian  Statesman,  London, 
1898. 

Polozhenie  o  vysshem  i  eparkhial’nom  upravlenie  pravoslavnoy 
tserkvi,  utverzhdenago  svyashchennym  soborom  pravoslavnoy 
roesiiskoy  tserkvi  v  1917-1918  g.  (Regulations  concerning  the 
supreme  and  eparchial  administration  of  the  Orthodox  Church 
passed  by  the  Sobor  of  1917-18),  Warsaw,  1922.  (In  Russian.) 

Reyburn,  H.  Y.:  The  Story  of  the  Russian  Church,  London,  1924. 

Romanoff,  H.  C. :  Rites  and  Customs  of  the  Graeco-Russian  Church, 
London,  1920. 

Rozhdestvensky,  A.:  Svyateishy  Tikhon  (The  Most  Holy  Tikhon), 
Sophia.  (Pamphlet,  in  Russian.) 

Solov’ev,  V.  S. :  Collected  Works,  7  vols.,  St.  Petersburg.  (In 
Russian.) 

Statistical  Review  of  the  People’s  Commissariat  of  Domestic  Affairs, 
Moscow.  (In  Russian.) 

Titlinov,  B.  V.:  Pravoslavie  na  sluzhbe  samoderzhaviya  v  russkom 
gosudarstve  (Orthodoxy  in  the  service  of  absolutism  of  the 
Russian  government),  Leningrad,  1924.  (In  Russian.) 


Bibliography  329 

Titlinov,  B.  V.:  Novaya  Tserkov  (The  New  Church),  Petrograd, 
1923.  (In  Russian.) 

Titlinov,  B.  V.:  Tserkov  vo  vrema  Revolyutsii  (The  Church  during 
the  Revolution),  Petrograd,  1924.  (In  Russian.) 

Tolstoy,  Lev  N.:  My  Confession,  New  York,  1887. 

Tolstoy,  Lev  N.:  My  Religion,  New  York,  1885. 

Trubetskoy,  E.  N.:  Smysl  Zhizni  (The  Meaning  of  Life),  Berlin, 
1922.  (In  Russian.) 

Valentinov,  A.  A.:  Chernaya  Kniga  (The  Black  Book),  Paris,  1925. 

Vvedensky,  Alexander:  Tserkov  i  Gosudarstvo,  1918-1922  (The 
Church  and  the  Government),  Moscow,  1923. 

Zhevakhov,  N.  D.:  Reminiscences,  Vol.  I,  Munich,  1923.  (In 
Russian.) 

Anti-Religious  Literature: 

Lenin,  V.  I.:  Mysli  V.  I.  Lenina  o  Religii  (V.  I.  Lenin’s  Ideas  about 
Religion),  Moscow.  (In  Russian.) 

Lukin,  N.:  Revolyutsiya  i  Tserkov  (The  Revolution  and  the 
Church),  Moscow.  (Pamphlet,  in  Russian.) 

Lunacharsky-Vvedensky :  Khristianstvo  ili  Kommunizm  (Christianity 
or  Communism?  A  Dispute  between  A.  V.  Lunacharsky  and 
Metropolitan  Alexander  Vvedensky),  Leningrad,  1926.  (In 
Russian.) 

Lunin,  A. :  Tserkov  i  Oktyabr’skaya  Revolyutsiya  (The  Church  and 
the  October  Revolution),  Moscow,  1925.  (In  Russian.) 

Okunev,  Yak.:  “Smena  Vekh”  v  tserkvi  (The  “Change  of  Sign- 
Posts”  in  the  Church),  Kharkov,  1923.  (Pamphlet,  in  Russian.) 

Paozersky,  M.  F.:  Russkie  Svatye  pered  sudom  Istorii  (The  Russian 
Saints  Before  the  Tribunal  of  History),  Moscow,  1923.  (In 
Russian.) 

Paozersky,  M.  F.:  Chudotvornye  Ikony  (The  Wonder-Working 
Images),  Moscow,  1923.  (In  Russian.) 

Sarab’yanov,  V.:  Ob  Antireligioznoy  Propagande  (About  the  Anti- 
Religious  Propaganda).  Moscow,  1923.  (Pamphlet,  in  Russian.) 

Important  Periodicals: 

Amerikansky  Pravoslavny  Vestnik  (The  American  Orthodox 
Messenger),  New  York.  (In  Russian.) 

Antireligioznik  (The  Anti-Religious  Journal),  Moscow.  (In  Russian.) 

Ateist  (The  Atheist),  Moscow.  (In  Russian.) 

Izvestiya  Vserossiyskago  Tsentralnago  Ispolnitel’nago  Komiteta 
(Bulletin  of  the  All-Russian  Central  Executive  Committee).  (In 
Russian.) 

Pravda.  The  Truth. 


330  Bibliography 

Put’.  Organ.  Russkoy  Religioznoy  Mysli  (The  Way:  Organ  of 
Russian  Religious  Thought),  Paris.  (In  Russian.) 

Revolyutsiya  i  Tserkov  (Revolution  and  the  Church),  Moscow. 

Russkaya  Mysl  (The  Russian  Thought). 

Slavonic  Review,  The,  London. 

Slovansky  Pfehled  (The  Slavic  Review)  Prague,  (In  Bohemian.) 

Tserkovnyya  Vedomosti  (The  Ecclesiastical  Journal),  Karlovtsi, 
Serbia.  (In  Russian.) 

Ukrainsky  Pravoslavny  Blagovestnik  (The  Ukrainian  Orthodox 
Messenger),  Kiev.  (In  Ukrainian.) 

Vestnik  Dukhovnikh  Khristian-Molokan  (The  Messenger  of  the 
Spiritual  Christians-Molokans) ,  Moscow.  (In  Russian.) 

Vestnik  Pravoslaviya  (The  Orthodox  Messenger),  Berlin.  (In 
Russian.) 

Vestnik  Svyashchennogo  Sinoda  Pravoslavnoy  Rossiiskoy  Tserkvi 
(Messenger  of  the  Most  Holy  Synod  of  the  Orthodox  Russian 
Church),  Moscow.  (In  Russian.) 

Zhivaya  Tserkov  (The  Living  Church),  Moscow.  (In  Russian.) 


■p> 


Due 


ivyVi/ 

x  i 

'  \  \ 

.  !  _ : _ 

’3&6  T 

HA/  ~b  h| 

■  r 

J !!jp 

z  i '  r 

,-rR27^9 

53 7  ^ 

M  4  '  »  •  r  *i 

i  i  ;-t  l  „  - .  (  ij 

P?7? 

u^y  »0 

//  j  .  ■  a# 

^  i 

r-  b ^  — 

f  ft  y  r.  . 

'  / 

••!W~2'gj 

NOV  i  8 

lOfl^rTv  1  A 

* 

\9fft 

_ 

OPT 

l  9  !9S3 

'MM  1  9 

2000 

■ 

3  9031 


364994  2 


68813 


ft  M , 

2>t  L/Sl',  H 

BOSTON  COLLEGE  LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  HEIGHTS 
CHESTNUT  HILL.  MASS. 


i 


Books  may  be  kept  for  two  weeks  and  may 
be  renewed  for  the  same  period,  unless  re¬ 
served. 

Two  cents  a  day  is  charged  for  each  book 
kept  overtime. 

If  yea  cannot  find  what  you  want,  ask  the 
Librarian  who  will  be  glad  to  help  you. 


The  ' -orrower  is  responsible  for  books  drawn 
on  his  card  and  for  all  fines  accruing  on  the 


same. 


